Uh oh ... we're at it again. At what again, Laurence? War.
Oh no, not again? Yes we are. And you're not alone if you
find it hard to believe that in some powerful (and truly
smart) circles, the barbarism of war is still
considered
to be viable in negotiating what we want. We've seen this play out
many, many times. It's déjà vu all over
again. We've done this before (colloquially we've been there, done
that). Even when we've gone to war heroically, it's
made no difference
(after it's over, things go on
turning out the way they turn
out).
Maybe
the reasons
we go to war aren't why we say we go to war (jus' sayin' ...).
Taking stock of
my own opinions
of war (not this war or that war, but war in
general terms), very few
people I know
would give going to war a thumbs-up to be a go-to way of
negotiating anything. It simply costs us all too much - in every way
imaginable, and also in ways unimaginable. Whether you vote
for war or against war, it keeps war on the ballot for
negotiating something. When going to war is hyped, it's couched like
a possibility, like something we say we'll create for ourselves and
our lives, with little or no downside, that
makes a difference
globally. Look: there's no possibility in war. None. Zip. Zilch.
I'm neither arguing for war nor against war as an option for
negotiating something. Neither
make any difference.
We still wage war as if this time it'll
make a difference
ie as if this time it'll be a viable option, that this will make it the
last war ever.
(
*** SPOILER ALERT! ***):
It won't. We hope it will. It never does.
Hyping going to war couched like a possibility, showcases in stark
relief an "us vs them in a you or me world"
mentality, rather than an "us and them in a you
and me world" mentality. We already know the former has
never worked. Yet whenever we go to war, we're adamant that
this time it'll work. That's crazy! No, it's more than
that: it's certifiably insane. Quoting Rita Mae Brown, "Insanity
is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results.". That's her famous quote - widely attributed erroneously to
Professor Albert Einstein. Thank you Rita (it's an acknowledgement that
your thinking is mistaken for Einstein's). We also hold the belief
we'll win in war because
God
is on our side. Now wait: if believing that this time war will be
viable for us, giving us everything and exactly what we want, is
certifiably insane, then believing we'll win in war because
God
is on our side, is two sheets to the wind.
Werner's
ideas
which inform this debate are poignant when we realize that 1)
considering
war can work, is certifiably insane, and 2)
considering
we'll win in war because
God
is on our side, is two sheets to the wind - the latter in particular
demonstrates in no uncertain terms how war is nothing more (and nothing
less) than a battle between
belief
systems
at odds with each other.
People
at war aren't really warring "being to being", if
you will. Rather, they're warring "belief to
belief". Warring isn't between who we are, as much as it's
between what we believe (until the onset of transformation, who we are
as belief masquerades as who we really are).
Transformation
recontextualizes
(I
love
that
word)
belief, and distinguishes it, thus disempowering it, revealing the
complete
and utter pointlessness of going to war in belief's name. That (in
essence)
is what
Werner's work,
like a harbinger of world peace, teases out.
The
ideas
pertaining to the unworkability and unsustainability of war presented
in this essay aren't new. To the contrary, they're widely known, having
been
discovered
repeatedly. With every new war we wage, it's déjà
vu all over again. We've been there, done that many times.
The truth is it's never worked.
Postscript:
The presentation, delivery, and style of
It's Déjà Vu All Over Again:
Reflections
On War
are all my own work.
The ideas recreated in
It's Déjà Vu All Over Again:
Reflections
On War
were first originated, distinguished, and articulated by
Werner Erhard.
