On violence & the world situation

Greetings fellow souls. I wrote this last night and am sharing it with you all because I know this Blog reaches a world-wide audience. This posting was written as I was watching the late, late evening news, thinking about the world situation and browsing another blog on tumblr; then I noticed someone else's brief post on violence and I knew I must write. Please read it to the end and if you find something worth deep consideration in it, by all means, please do. Think on it. Share it. Redistribute it elsewhere – even without credit. The thoughts are "Open" and free.

* * *

The thing about violence is that it is rather contagious , isn’t it? I mean, for humans when one group does violence on another for whatever reason, the injured group feels hurt. What is the reaction? To strike back, to seek retribution, to retaliate. Does the issue of violence remain contained in one area, one village, one city or one country? No. Violence is a social disruptor . Violence disrupts the homeostasis of a well-balanced system, it is not the sole cause of disruption but the result of contributing factors such as economic upheaval, drought, lack of agricultural resources, or a combination of multiple factors. The excuse of violence in the name of adherence to religious precepts is something done out of sheer frustration! When a massive population is trapped in a small region with too few resources and an inability to relocate, I understand violence can become a tool for change!

How we receive the survivors of violence and how they are handled really says the most about the rest of the world. If people cannot survive in one area of the world , how is it morally right or helpful to even say, ‘You cannot leave that area!’ or attempt to force them to return and fight for their patch of dirt?

I suggest the world create a resettlement city somewhere with available water, farmable land and immediately relocate all the refugees to it. Tent cities and temporary refugee camps should only be temporary! If the world desires to demonstrate a higher capacity for compassion and caring, then WE MUST rescue our fellow humans no matter what the cost!

If the situation were a natural disaster such as a volcano or earthquake and 30,000, 50,000 or 100,000 people were permanently displaced, I would hope the world could somehow unite behind the idea of permanent relocation.

If necessary, track the cost of relocation and create a shared debt account the survivors can repay or pay-down over time. In this way the world would not be permanently “picking up the tab” for settlement, only temporarily doing it.

If we collectively exercised our peaceful willpower and selected an area where people are needed to boost an economy, then I suggest a group of refugees this size could be a powerful tool of economic transformation! If the American city of Detroit were capable of receiving this number of displaced people, then a refugee group of this size could reasonably transform the area into a completely new, revitalized metropolis. Sadly, the people of Detroit might need to be relocated to somewhere “better” themselves in the near future!

Where in the world could the refugees of Syria and other Middle Eastern countries be resettled, by military airlift if necessary, to permanently resettle them? If somewhere in the world had a disaster larger than Chernobyl or Fukushima , what would we do? Where would the people go? Would it be morally just to “force” the people or economy of one nation to absorb the cost of recovering from such an event?

This opportunity to could the one which proves we are better, we are capable, and a solution to any problem in the world is possible!

Let ISIS or ISIL say anything bad about the world not caring AFTER we have rescued a huge number of their victims!

* * *

I think there needs to be a global emergency fund, but really have no idea who could manage it. I do not want to criticize any existing organization or suggest any one (U.N.) expand its area of responsibility, because I do not know enough about any of these matters to suggest that. Maybe the Red Cross or Red Crescent could do it.. (again) I simply do not know. If we can spend millions or billions of dollars per month engaging in a war, then it should be EASILY justifiable to spend several millions in one month to justify a LARGE rescue mission.

10 thoughts on “On violence & the world situation”

  1. If the Islamic State does become further legitimized in that region, then they will have a bigger obligation to run things as a "stable" host government. To protect its population and insure each person has the ability to contribute in a productive manner to society, which strengthens government further, so it can do even more. I am not educated on whether or not IS believes this as a part ultimate goals, or whether "world domination" is a more central idea as it may seem to outsiders.

    If IS were to grow into a legitimate government, then what? Would they have a standing army, a navy, their own air force and all the same issues as many other countries? What is it they say about, "Getting what you wish for" and being careful? I wish them luck with "al-BaghdadiCARE" when they must spend $600 million dollars to set it up.

    This is all I have to contribute today as I may literally be homeless within a week or two. Take care.

  2. Although you and others might find the following difficult and confusing to understand, my immediate thoughts regarding the ambitions of IS are these.

    What fundamental difference is there between a colonial power backed by the church expanding their Empire, and a fundamentalist state aspiring to regain what they perceive to be rightfully theirs?

    As a fleeing species on this planet, who has any real right to claim anything as their own? The earth itself is somewhat indifferent to the assertions of men. It doesn't know the difference between one man claiming "this land is mine," and another claiming "no this land is mine." In actual reality it belongs to no one man for no one man or woman can survive long enough to hold any lasting claim.
    People lament the fact we are destroying the Earth. Matter is indestructible. All we're really doing is destroying ourselves. As important as we ourselves may think ourselves, the planet and other species upon it don't benefit one bit from an ape that has acquired so much intelligence on the one hand, yet retains such stupidity and superstition on the other.

    Humans by their very nature are self destructive. How do you remove people from danger when they themselves are the danger 🙂

    If I berate you, or worse insult you, are you able to laugh it off? If someone slights you, and conducts an injustice, are you able to smile and go on your way?

    As a species we have not mastered our minds nor our thoughts. They are self inflicted daggers.

    Do you know what Gandhi's solution to the 2nd World War was when consulted by Western allies? Passive resistance. The western allies scoffed of course and thought he was mad. None the less it was passive resistance that won independence for India.

    The true enemy of man lies within. The dreaded foe dwells within each person's thoughts. All people desire peace and prosperity, but of course the reason this can't be accomplished is because that bastard over there has more than me. That infidel doesn't believe what I do. That heathen doesn't worship my God. That person offends me with their customs and behaviour.

    Until humankind evolves to a point that inner peace and contentment is self sustained and self fulfilled, suffering will prevail. The Buddha understood this over 5 centuries ago. The vast majority still don't get it. As a species we will continue to suffer until we do get it.

  3. Thanks for adding to the discussion Shane. You have contributed a very good addition.

    I understand war can be about resources, and Iraq may be the latest example of that happening, but I also think World War II – the European part at least – was not about Great Britain or the much large United States of America capturing the resources of Europe. It was more about the desire of the ego-maniac head of the Nazi party making a grab for power, resources and destroying a segment of humanity he despised.

    In that scenario what if it had been possible to airlift millions of people out of harms way? To transport 5 million Jewish people and hundreds of thousands of others out of Europe, bringing them to America? To surrender an area of land with its mineral and agricultural resources to an enemy, but save the lives, give hope and (at least) delay the further strengthening of the aggressor's power-base.

    In the case of ISIS, a group which appears to be killing anyone and everyone unwilling to bend to its will, maybe all we can do is remove the targets from their target rich environment? Also, the world would be removing a source of new recruits for their ranks if we could remove all the young, able-bodied men, or everyone in general, from the region. Employing a strategy of: The only way not to loose the boxing match is to, get out of the ring! The old lesson of fight or flight we were all taught in primary school.

    ISIS would become a group largely in charge of oil resources, minerals and a very large patch of desert, but they would have no vulnerable population to govern. I think the refugees or migrants we are witnessing streaming into Greece, Turkey, Hungary and Germany are quite literally like people fleeing from a burning building or sinking ship. This was my point.

    Many of the world's modern disasters have involved the populations of an area being hit by a natural phenomena with insufficient warning to move the people out of harm's way. Hurricane Katrina: 1,833 lives or more who were never counted. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami: 230,000 lives or more. Where will be the next large scale disaster the world will be unprepared to handle?

    And what is the root cause of ISIS? What is there that anyone can undo, correct or make amends for at this time? Have they made demands the world community has decided it cannot meet?

    I just found these two references:


  4. Unless you understand the root cause of a problem all you're ever going to accomplish is dealing with its symptoms and never actually applying a treatment that prevents the symptoms in the first place.

    Your observation that "we can spend millions or billions of dollars per month engaging in a war" hints at one aspect of a root cause.

    A quick reflection on global conduct should reveal that the woes our generations have inherited, largely revolve around greed and procession.

    In Australia Aborigines prevailed in a harsh landscape for thousands of years. They lived harmoniously with the land and each other for 60,000 years or more. Within a mere 220 odd years, British colonisation has laid waste to that harmony and well being.

    The land was stolen plain and simple. The indigenous people made stateless with no independent representation of their own. Imagine being displaced within the very place you and your people come from.

    Given the human expense of lives and the financial debt you expend on war, what do you think the prize is? Don't delude yourself that any country expends any amount to protect a freedom or principal. Historic conduct shows no respect for peace, harmony or wellbeing. Historically all endeavour is greed, wealth and possession. The greatest human atrocities have occurred in its pursuit. Slavery and genocide are two glaring examples.

    The modern motivation for war is wealth and control of resources. Billions upon billions drive the "defence" industry. This provides jobs and economic wealth for an elite few. The end product of war is control of resources.

    Spending money to treat the by-product of war is essentially providing additional financial support for it. The assets you're paying for however, don't have a great return on investment. In the eyes of those engaging in war, they are quite expendable. Were that not the case they'd employ a different tactic to gain possession of their prize.

    This may sound completely outrageous if you think wars are fought on some principal of "freedom". If you examine the tactics and people the U.S has engaged to destabilise whole regions, in order to create conflict, so they can step in to ultimately possess and control the resources, you would weep.

    Do you really think the Gulf wars were about "weapons of mass destruction?" The only people in procession of WMDs were the people that invented that term to veil their actual motives. Destabilise and control.

    The only thing that's really changed in the last 200 years are the tactics. The displacement of people, disruption of harmony and wellbeing remains the same. The greed driven pursuit of resources prevails. Until that root issue is addressed the world will continue to be an unjust, inhumane place to live for a great many.

Leave a Comment

New Report