Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 3 Share on Twitter 2 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 5/13/17

Part I: Why we Fight: the self-fulfilling prophecy of Human Belligerence

Author 95661
Message dale ruff

In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, former President Barack Obama stated that "War goes back to the earliest man." I suggest this self-fulfilling claim explains why the recipient of the Peace Prize went on to start several wars and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Lyndon Johnson made an even more startling comment when he said: "War is madness, but we do what we must."

(See:

Has a Bogus Theory of War Kept Obama from Being a Peace President?

Once again, Barack Obama, the world's most powerful military leader, has propagated an erroneous claim about the origins of war

Clearly, our ex-President failed to deliver. Our current President has, to make matters even worse, escalated wars in 5 nations, attacked Syria directly and threatened North Korea with nukes. Those that believe war is inevitable, such as Trump's strategy adviser Steve Bannon, who said in 2016: "We are going to war in the South China Sea in 5 to 10 years, " and added, "There's no doubt about that," are engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy. He also says there will me a "major" war in the Middle East, and Trump has already made that likely by escalating in Iraq and attacking Syria.

"You cannot simultaneously prepare for and prevent war." AE

Both our former and our current President operate from the neo-Hobbesian view of the world as a war of "all against all, each against each." This view of human nature and destiny is a self-fulfilling prophesy, a mistaken idea that always leads to bloodshed (as Camus wrote).

I argue, in length, that this belief that we must fight is the reason that we continue to fight, that the myth of our warlike nature blinds us both to our long history of non-violence and blunts our fervent desire for an end to war.

"Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed, but in every case, it is someone else's blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything.

  • Actuelles I, 1950/Albert Camus
  • This series of essays explores the mistaken idea that has led humanity into a 10,000-year era of unending warfare and violence.

    This essay is a response, a challenge to a dialogue, about the competing paradigms of politics. I propose there is a politics of equality and a politics of the master/slave paradigm and therefore, we have a choice. This essay is long, for the modern tweet addict, so I recommend reading it in sections.

    The articles by my esteemed colleague, Arlan Ebel, propose that there is

    only one political paradigm, that of hierarchy, and therefore it will take, I presume, a revolution, to create a new paradigm which would be beyond politics.

    I thank Arlan for raising this issue, which I hope to expand from a dilemma into a choice. I argue that there are two political paradigms, one dominant, one suppressed. The contention that there is only one political paradigm, I will suggest, is part of the suppression.

    My basic assumption is that politics is NOT about domination but about the distribution of power and that our history shows us two competing paradigms, one hierarchical, the other egalitarian. My further contention is that only the non-hierarchial paradigm is sustainable and can bring us a world free of perpetual violence, that the dominant paradigm, which argues that any other arrangement is utopian and destined for failure, is itself unsustainable and destined to destroy us all if we do not replace it. I further suggest the replacement is not a fantasy but a return to our most ancient principles of political organization which sustained humankind for hundreds of thousands of years without war or the need for masters and slaves.

    The oldest symbol is the circle, which in its dynamic form is a spiral; the circle represents unity, equality, and movement, and the concept of revolution is founded on the concept of the functional circle we call the wheel, the spinning circle which always returns to its point of origin.

    Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

     

    Must Read 3   Well Said 3   Valuable 3  
    Rate It | View Ratings

    dale ruff Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

    retired, working radical egalitarian/libertarian socialist old school independent, vegan, survivor

    Go To Commenting
    The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
    Writers Guidelines
    Contact EditorContact Editor
    Support OpEdNews

    OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

    If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

    STAY IN THE KNOW
    If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
    Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
    Name
    Email
       (Opens new browser window)
     

    Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

    Trump Leading 67% to Hillary's 19% in National Poll of 50,000

    How Sanders/Stein can win the Presidency: and it's incubating now!

    Women's March costs Soros (or is it the CIA?) over half a billion today alone!

    The Trump Secret to Wealth: slave labor/ no taxes/ propaganda.

    Politics as Psychopathology: Trump's Attention Deficit, Oppositional, and Sleep Disorder

    The Enemy IS the People: Critics should shut up and be fired