The prescient songster with the heart of a poet saw through the myriad of trees and zeroed in upon the wood itself; he instinctively, intuitively understood the very heart of the issue. Did he what!
Likewise, in this our day and age of senseless tragedy, mindless mayhem and callous carnage, it is something Americans would do well to reflect - quite seriously and soberly - upon. They could do no worse. It is, after all, the upcoming generation who has most at stake. And who'll one day be much less than forgiving if something isn't done, and awfully quickly, about America's ongoing yet ever escalating 'series' of school shootouts, or more accurately, gun-utilizing massacres.
So on *this very day of **nationwide student protests throughout the States, perhaps Americans would do well to reflect upon the words of one considered both in his own time (and ever since) by a large number of people as the wisest person (bar one) who ever walked this earth. Solomon's timeless words, recorded in a book that Americans tend to pay endless lip service to, tell us that ***/****'there is a time for everything, a season for every activity under the sun' (Ecclesiastes 3: 1), or as The Holy Bible: The New King James Version puts it: 'To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven.'
But no, not - ever - a time for arming teachers in schools (talk about the dumbest idea of the century, if not millennium). That is a solution looking for a problem, not a solution to anything - at all. I mean, except escalating the existing problem, and exponentially. From a mere epidemic into a pandemic. Thus taking the 'problem' of gun violence/massacres to new levels, i.e. depths, of inanity.
And to those politicians who believe that such things are any solution to anything, I hope that protesting youngsters' staunch refrain proves true, i.e. "such had better get their resumes ready" (after the voters, assuming they finally come to their senses, put them out to pasture (come America's mid-term elections late this year)). Anything less would be a disaster for future generations. On top of a sheer betrayal.
*Though I wrote this reflection upon February 23, a full month (and some) ago.
**And numerous 'in-sympathy/empathy' ones across the globe, including my hometown of Dunedin, Aotearoa-New Zealand's own D(unedin) N(orth) I(ntermediate) as well.
***Timeless words with which many are no doubt familiar through the wonderful '60s folk song, 'Turn, Turn, Turn', which, in covering off this well-known Bible verse and the seven (and fourteen couplets) following, also cites 'a time to be born, and a time to die', 'a time to kill, and a time to heal', 'a time to weep, and a time to laugh', 'a time to mourn, and a time to dance', 'a time to love, and a time to hate', *****'a time of peace, I hope it's not too late!'
*****Though actually King Solomon himself expressed it: 'a time of war, and a time of peace'.
****A verse (or rather entire - nine verse - passage) my Dad evidently also always loved, a lovely little red booklet of such - specially made by one of his patients - being passed down to me after his death almost thirteen years ago now.
Part Two: The Reason? Some Rottenness at the Very Core of Modern-Day America
Thus it is - well past - time for Americans to take urgent and decisive action, like yesterday! upon the scourge, the plague, affecting and infecting the very heart and soul of the nation. After but a moment more's reflection upon just what has become of their once great 'shining city on a hill'. A nation about which Abraham Lincoln observed with profound insight that once it ceased to be good, it would likewise cease to be great. Indeed. So it has indeed well proven.
The nation of 'exceptionalism', an attribute which it has unabashedly assumed and arrogated to itself alongside that of Global Cop, a country boasting unprecedented material wealth and riches, political power and military might, technological sophistication and man-centred 'wisdom', has reached quite an impasse - upon so many fronts - of late; having made itself a bed (no longer of roses) it must well and truly try to lie (i.e. live) in.
Thus the times, as Dylan told us, have been indeed a-changin', and not in a positive direction. And thus 'these times' of late have given rise to the likes of 'Black Lives Matter' and the 'Me Too Movement' (though this latter is now well and truly an international phenomenon, whatever and wherever its precise origin as such). Yes, something has surely gone awry, revealing for all the nation and world to see something sore and festering, something sick and virulent, at the very heart of American life. Make no mistake about it, a time indeed of great significance in the life and times of the United (in name only) States of America. Where it stands as it were at a major cross-roads, where even a slight turn to either the right or the left may be fraught with serious, even eternal consequences.
But no, one thing it is not, no, nor ever will be: that is, a time for arming teachers in schools with lethal weapons. That, as I maintained earlier, is more a solution looking for a problem, or rather a method of increasing and expanding the present problem exponentially. It will bring about no good at all, only serving to line the pockets of the gun suppliers and salesmen and multiply such incidents exponentially across states, cities and communities heretofore relatively 'immune' from such.
But neither is the answer in a return to superficial religion, to mass religiousness or *religiosity or patriotic churchianity, as has so often been America's wont. I.e. the wholesale embracing of costless, cheap grace (as Dietrich Bonhoeffer so aptly termed the like in his own Nazi Germany), something late 20th Century America (on into the 21st, apparently) has perfected into a veritable art form. No, rather biblical repentance is called for, but it is neither cheap nor easy...and if it is ever embraced it will cost Americans - like people everywhere - absolutely all that they have or call their own.
*As mentioned in another blogpost somewhere I am indebted (from 1990 or so) to a one-time friend in Brisbane for such unsurpassed terms (as 'religiosity' and 'churchianity' - though admittedly I've in recent times stumbled upon both of these in various (written) contexts).
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Friday, March 23, 2018
Water, Water Everywhere...But Not Enough For Everyone To (Safely) Drink - Yes, Even In (Much Of) The 'Enlightened' West
So evidently 'yesterday' - internationally - was 'World Water Day'. WWD 'is about focusing attention upon the importance of water on 22 March every year', according to the first (presumably homepage) entry upon 'worldwaterday.org/. Which furthermore declares: 'THE ANSWER IS IN NATURE.' So far, so good.
And we are then asked: 'How can we reduce floods, droughts and water pollution?' The answer, as we are well able to guess (from what immediately preceded): 'By using the solutions found in nature.' Again, well and good, who can argue with that rather obvious, inescapable logic? Who indeed.
Well actually, the very folk promoting this wonderful notion - of a global day of reflecting upon, of focusing the mind upon the importance, the significance of water to our lives (in so many different yet interchangeably critical respects) - i.e. 'WHO' (that is, the World Health Organisation), evidently themselves do contest just such a notion. I.e. that 'the answer', 'the solutions' are to be found in nature itself.
So how do I, how can I possibly come to such a preposterous notion myself? Well, for one simple reason: their ongoing, steadfast and implacable determination to promote, to push, to see the enacting - by hook or by crook - of artificial water fluoridation throughout the world. And that despite there not only being no good and sufficient evidence that the practice ensures healthy dental caries (good teeth), but there now being - internationally - abundant evidence as to the highly deleterious results.
Yes, today there are indeed '663 million people living without a safe water supply close to home, spending countless hours queuing or trekking to distant sources, and coping [i.e. as best anyone can] with the health impacts of using contaminated water.' Moreover '1.8 billion people use a source of drinking water contaminated with faeces, putting them at risk of contracting cholera, dysentery, typhoid and polio.' On top of that, 'over 80% of wastewater generated by societies [around the world] flows back into the ecosystem without being treated and reused', and 'unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene cause around 842,000 deaths each year' (WHO/UNICEF/WHO/2014).
No, I'm not - nobody - is arguing that the above is not the case, that the foregoing is just so much 'fake news' in this day and age of the like. But what I and many like myself are indeed 'saying' is that we need to be consistent here. Sure, the vast majority of the world's present-day population doesn't have the 'luxury' to quibble about such 'esoteric' concerns as the addition of a chemical in comparatively microscopic amounts to drinking water (largely in Western countries, but also elsewhere). How can they, they're dealing hand and glove with life-and-death situations and issues.
But when a longstanding, widespread practice such as water fluoridation not only does not bring the actually rather meagre and certainly extremely limited benefits it is continually publicly paraded as possessing/conferring - by so-called 'health' authorities and their armies of bureaucrats and technocrats down the line, while being shown in scientific study upon study to be visiting quite serious consequences upon 'users', yes, including cancer and heart disease (among much else)...perhaps it's time for people everywhere to ask themselves: what's all this actually about anyway?
No, I mean, really? Though 'sorry [does indeed] seem[.] to be the hardest word', sometimes admitting you're just plain wrong, that you've been pushing the wrong barrel up the road for way too long, is a really good place to start. I'm being serious, folks; deadly in earnest even. And why should that be?
Because it is literally a matter of life and death, people. Yes indeed. And the way things are at present, there's quite honestly much blood upon many 'well-meaning' peoples' hands. And as in Nazi Germany, claiming you've just been 'following orders' from above simply won't cut it - any more. If ever it did.
And we are then asked: 'How can we reduce floods, droughts and water pollution?' The answer, as we are well able to guess (from what immediately preceded): 'By using the solutions found in nature.' Again, well and good, who can argue with that rather obvious, inescapable logic? Who indeed.
Well actually, the very folk promoting this wonderful notion - of a global day of reflecting upon, of focusing the mind upon the importance, the significance of water to our lives (in so many different yet interchangeably critical respects) - i.e. 'WHO' (that is, the World Health Organisation), evidently themselves do contest just such a notion. I.e. that 'the answer', 'the solutions' are to be found in nature itself.
So how do I, how can I possibly come to such a preposterous notion myself? Well, for one simple reason: their ongoing, steadfast and implacable determination to promote, to push, to see the enacting - by hook or by crook - of artificial water fluoridation throughout the world. And that despite there not only being no good and sufficient evidence that the practice ensures healthy dental caries (good teeth), but there now being - internationally - abundant evidence as to the highly deleterious results.
Yes, today there are indeed '663 million people living without a safe water supply close to home, spending countless hours queuing or trekking to distant sources, and coping [i.e. as best anyone can] with the health impacts of using contaminated water.' Moreover '1.8 billion people use a source of drinking water contaminated with faeces, putting them at risk of contracting cholera, dysentery, typhoid and polio.' On top of that, 'over 80% of wastewater generated by societies [around the world] flows back into the ecosystem without being treated and reused', and 'unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene cause around 842,000 deaths each year' (WHO/UNICEF/WHO/2014).
No, I'm not - nobody - is arguing that the above is not the case, that the foregoing is just so much 'fake news' in this day and age of the like. But what I and many like myself are indeed 'saying' is that we need to be consistent here. Sure, the vast majority of the world's present-day population doesn't have the 'luxury' to quibble about such 'esoteric' concerns as the addition of a chemical in comparatively microscopic amounts to drinking water (largely in Western countries, but also elsewhere). How can they, they're dealing hand and glove with life-and-death situations and issues.
But when a longstanding, widespread practice such as water fluoridation not only does not bring the actually rather meagre and certainly extremely limited benefits it is continually publicly paraded as possessing/conferring - by so-called 'health' authorities and their armies of bureaucrats and technocrats down the line, while being shown in scientific study upon study to be visiting quite serious consequences upon 'users', yes, including cancer and heart disease (among much else)...perhaps it's time for people everywhere to ask themselves: what's all this actually about anyway?
No, I mean, really? Though 'sorry [does indeed] seem[.] to be the hardest word', sometimes admitting you're just plain wrong, that you've been pushing the wrong barrel up the road for way too long, is a really good place to start. I'm being serious, folks; deadly in earnest even. And why should that be?
Because it is literally a matter of life and death, people. Yes indeed. And the way things are at present, there's quite honestly much blood upon many 'well-meaning' peoples' hands. And as in Nazi Germany, claiming you've just been 'following orders' from above simply won't cut it - any more. If ever it did.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Stephen Hawking: Inconvenient Thinker Outside The Orthodox Contemporary Intellectual Mould
Don't they say that everyone champions a good man (or woman) - after s/he's gone? So true. Yes, that's when everyone 'in the know', I mean media...comes out of the proverbial woodwork and finds diadems of beauty and brilliance in those they previously either simply ignored, or positively belittled. So I'm naturally taking a bit of a risk myself in deigning - or rather daring - to 'tackle' the life of our Globe's modern-day Einstein.
Nevertheless I believe a few salient points need to be made, if only to fill in some of the significant 'missing 'pieces' - as so often occurs - in the media narrative upon Stephen Hawking's death last week. Forgotten info, or more likely inconvenient truths; truths and facts and realities which simply don't happen to mesh with the world outlook our supposed contemporary 'intelligentsia' choose to believe, whilst branding all outsiders odd, foolhardy, clueless, dunces, fanatical, or simply bizarre. Or all of the foregoing or any combination thereof.
So what is the essential point I wish to make? And why would I even have the gall to intrude myself into an arena - i.e. the life and thinking of present-day *genii - whom I have neither known nor met, and even about whom I really know precious little? But perhaps therein lies the actual reason: the little I do happen to know, or at least have 'observed' or noted, is indeed precious...in relation to Stephen Hawking in particular. Or so I'm going to contend.
I'm simply sure of the following: that the fellow with the (televisually and via other broadcast media) well-known robotic voice adopted in order to vocalize his intended speech - like so many if not the great majority of intellectual 'greats' in decades and centuries gone by - leaned heavily toward, **if not fully, publicly subscribing to an ultimate view of reality and the universe which is commonly referred to (in contemporary parlance) as 'intelligent design'. The traditional terminology of (literal) creation just being a road too far for modern-day 'post-Christian' sensibilities.
Yes indeed. So I do find it fascinating, and not a little typical, that upon a fundamental tenet of dried-and-dusted, dyed-in-the-wool, contemporary thinking, from which any and every publicly-articulated deviation is immediately, summarily and stridently - if not, I would argue, soundly - condemned (as an indication of inadequate and/or inferior intellect and hence unsuitability for airing in the public domain fullstop), Mr Hawking happened to significantly differ, even 'deviate'.
Though as I earlier averred, ***my knowledge of the ins and outs, the vagaries and complexities, the subtleties and nuances of astrophysics - his essential 'specialty' of knowledge - is not only deficient but essentially rather basic, even somewhat minimal, the very fact that a person regarded almost universally (among Earthians, that is!) as a modern-day 'Einstein' apparently had a 'suspicion', however furtive or attended by intricate elaboration, that there did indeed appear to be signs and indications of actual design and intention in this universe and the various parts thereof, is surely 'saying something'.
Here I will simply make mention of two 'references', one a book, the other a (publicly-recorded) lecture, in which Hawking is considered to have at least endorsed the principle of intelligent design. In the first, Hawking's co-authored The Nature of Space and Time, ****in which he engages in ongoing dialogue upon serious questions regarding such with fellow British theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, I understand that Stephen Hawking suggests a divine creator behind things. In the other (a lecture titled 'The Beginning of Time'), according to Richard Ames of the weekly 'Tomorrow's World' telecast, 'famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking stated the view of most astronomers today:
The universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, has a beginning in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.'
Yes, for the former book (often cited in general broadcast media since Hawking's death) I admittedly provide no specific statement, perhaps because I happen (to have every good reason) to trust such as ******Mr Ames (generally, but especially when discussing the aforementioned subject of creation(ism)/intelligent design (in great detail). In addition, however, though I failed to jot down notes quickly enough, I did hear another reference to that book which indicated others' belief that Hawking did indeed therein suggest he had 'sympathies' in truth with a designed universe.
I'll conclude with these few thoughts/reflections. Suffice to add I find it interesting indeed and cannot help but speculate on how, following Hawking's death, the (non-specifically Christian, at least) broadcast media steered well clear of such a significant and incontrovertibly controversial subject area despite its rather extensive reportage overall. But don't most folk do precisely that whenever the facts don't suit their particular argument or whenever those selfsame 'facts' start to go against their preconceived opinions? On that score I've my own strong suspicions...yes, indeed!
*Yes, that's the literal plural of genius - and no, it needn't take a genius to know that! Well, actually, 'genii' is apparently the plural of 'genie', and 'geniuses' of 'genius' - and in both my ever trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary and my Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary. So, hey, you can indeed learn something new every day, eh.
**My personal surmising is simply that the only reason Stephen Hawking didn't seem to push this (very complex and wide-ranging) subject any further was that he felt unwilling to embroil himself in one of our contemporary world's hot potatoes: i.e. evolution versus creation. Perhaps - at least it seems a legitimate enough, reasonable surmise to me - Hawking, like so many these days (and for understandable reason, no doubt, in the post-George W era) didn't want to be associated, much less identified with, 'those crazy, nutty fundamentalist Christians'. And also - sure, a very personal surmise, to be sure - like my dear old Gram (now dead over twenty years, though in a dream just the other day), just as she evidently found it hard to 'forgive God' (yes, you heard me aright!) for the death of my namesake, my Dad's younger brother, at just eight years of age, maybe Stephen Hawking found it difficult to forgive God for his lifelong crippling physical disability - though arguably it proved to be the very secret to his ultimate success and genius (and thus arguably a proof in itself of the divine omniscience!)
***Though I at least believe that having been declared by Mensa (in my later teens) as myself possessing an intellect within the top 1-2-5% of the population I am not wholly unqualified to have a serious opinion upon such matters, and to regard that opinion as sufficiently robust to withstand superficially-based criticism thereof.
****According to Wikipedia this is a tome 'that documents a debate on physics and the *****philosophy of physics' between Penrose and Hawking.
*****Curiously enough it was only two days ago that my scientist brother informed me that the varsity papers he's recently been undertaking deal with such matters as both the philosophy and history of science.
******Who'd admittedly disclaim folk like myself doing so! But just as everyone has implicit faith that any time they push various buttons, appliances of light and electricity instantaneously 'come alive' and work (in the way that they expect), likewise it's eminently reasonable at times, even on those rare occasions when one doesn't necessarily comprehend all the ins and outs of someone's actual reasoning, to simply reaffirm one's trust in those who've earned their implicit respect over a long period of time and over numerous types of situations; unless and until proven otherwise (at least).
Nevertheless I believe a few salient points need to be made, if only to fill in some of the significant 'missing 'pieces' - as so often occurs - in the media narrative upon Stephen Hawking's death last week. Forgotten info, or more likely inconvenient truths; truths and facts and realities which simply don't happen to mesh with the world outlook our supposed contemporary 'intelligentsia' choose to believe, whilst branding all outsiders odd, foolhardy, clueless, dunces, fanatical, or simply bizarre. Or all of the foregoing or any combination thereof.
So what is the essential point I wish to make? And why would I even have the gall to intrude myself into an arena - i.e. the life and thinking of present-day *genii - whom I have neither known nor met, and even about whom I really know precious little? But perhaps therein lies the actual reason: the little I do happen to know, or at least have 'observed' or noted, is indeed precious...in relation to Stephen Hawking in particular. Or so I'm going to contend.
I'm simply sure of the following: that the fellow with the (televisually and via other broadcast media) well-known robotic voice adopted in order to vocalize his intended speech - like so many if not the great majority of intellectual 'greats' in decades and centuries gone by - leaned heavily toward, **if not fully, publicly subscribing to an ultimate view of reality and the universe which is commonly referred to (in contemporary parlance) as 'intelligent design'. The traditional terminology of (literal) creation just being a road too far for modern-day 'post-Christian' sensibilities.
Yes indeed. So I do find it fascinating, and not a little typical, that upon a fundamental tenet of dried-and-dusted, dyed-in-the-wool, contemporary thinking, from which any and every publicly-articulated deviation is immediately, summarily and stridently - if not, I would argue, soundly - condemned (as an indication of inadequate and/or inferior intellect and hence unsuitability for airing in the public domain fullstop), Mr Hawking happened to significantly differ, even 'deviate'.
Though as I earlier averred, ***my knowledge of the ins and outs, the vagaries and complexities, the subtleties and nuances of astrophysics - his essential 'specialty' of knowledge - is not only deficient but essentially rather basic, even somewhat minimal, the very fact that a person regarded almost universally (among Earthians, that is!) as a modern-day 'Einstein' apparently had a 'suspicion', however furtive or attended by intricate elaboration, that there did indeed appear to be signs and indications of actual design and intention in this universe and the various parts thereof, is surely 'saying something'.
Here I will simply make mention of two 'references', one a book, the other a (publicly-recorded) lecture, in which Hawking is considered to have at least endorsed the principle of intelligent design. In the first, Hawking's co-authored The Nature of Space and Time, ****in which he engages in ongoing dialogue upon serious questions regarding such with fellow British theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, I understand that Stephen Hawking suggests a divine creator behind things. In the other (a lecture titled 'The Beginning of Time'), according to Richard Ames of the weekly 'Tomorrow's World' telecast, 'famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking stated the view of most astronomers today:
The universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, has a beginning in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.'
Yes, for the former book (often cited in general broadcast media since Hawking's death) I admittedly provide no specific statement, perhaps because I happen (to have every good reason) to trust such as ******Mr Ames (generally, but especially when discussing the aforementioned subject of creation(ism)/intelligent design (in great detail). In addition, however, though I failed to jot down notes quickly enough, I did hear another reference to that book which indicated others' belief that Hawking did indeed therein suggest he had 'sympathies' in truth with a designed universe.
I'll conclude with these few thoughts/reflections. Suffice to add I find it interesting indeed and cannot help but speculate on how, following Hawking's death, the (non-specifically Christian, at least) broadcast media steered well clear of such a significant and incontrovertibly controversial subject area despite its rather extensive reportage overall. But don't most folk do precisely that whenever the facts don't suit their particular argument or whenever those selfsame 'facts' start to go against their preconceived opinions? On that score I've my own strong suspicions...yes, indeed!
*Yes, that's the literal plural of genius - and no, it needn't take a genius to know that! Well, actually, 'genii' is apparently the plural of 'genie', and 'geniuses' of 'genius' - and in both my ever trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary and my Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary. So, hey, you can indeed learn something new every day, eh.
**My personal surmising is simply that the only reason Stephen Hawking didn't seem to push this (very complex and wide-ranging) subject any further was that he felt unwilling to embroil himself in one of our contemporary world's hot potatoes: i.e. evolution versus creation. Perhaps - at least it seems a legitimate enough, reasonable surmise to me - Hawking, like so many these days (and for understandable reason, no doubt, in the post-George W era) didn't want to be associated, much less identified with, 'those crazy, nutty fundamentalist Christians'. And also - sure, a very personal surmise, to be sure - like my dear old Gram (now dead over twenty years, though in a dream just the other day), just as she evidently found it hard to 'forgive God' (yes, you heard me aright!) for the death of my namesake, my Dad's younger brother, at just eight years of age, maybe Stephen Hawking found it difficult to forgive God for his lifelong crippling physical disability - though arguably it proved to be the very secret to his ultimate success and genius (and thus arguably a proof in itself of the divine omniscience!)
***Though I at least believe that having been declared by Mensa (in my later teens) as myself possessing an intellect within the top 1-2-5% of the population I am not wholly unqualified to have a serious opinion upon such matters, and to regard that opinion as sufficiently robust to withstand superficially-based criticism thereof.
****According to Wikipedia this is a tome 'that documents a debate on physics and the *****philosophy of physics' between Penrose and Hawking.
*****Curiously enough it was only two days ago that my scientist brother informed me that the varsity papers he's recently been undertaking deal with such matters as both the philosophy and history of science.
******Who'd admittedly disclaim folk like myself doing so! But just as everyone has implicit faith that any time they push various buttons, appliances of light and electricity instantaneously 'come alive' and work (in the way that they expect), likewise it's eminently reasonable at times, even on those rare occasions when one doesn't necessarily comprehend all the ins and outs of someone's actual reasoning, to simply reaffirm one's trust in those who've earned their implicit respect over a long period of time and over numerous types of situations; unless and until proven otherwise (at least).
Friday, March 16, 2018
The Syrian (Civil) War (Part Three): So Who's To Say Who Should Stay?
Following on from my *blogpost yesterday (and a moment ago) upon the Syrian conflict seven years on, what are we to make of those Westerners - especially vocal upon talkback radio - who are, like most of us, admittedly, increasingly overwhelmed emotionally by the large numbers leaving Syria. Again, like most people in such nations, these folk seem more and more anxious and distrustful about their emigrating in seemingly ever larger numbers into Western nations - with the consequent issues this has apparently (and indeed indisputably) created at times. But then such people take this a step or several further in their incensed assertions that 'they' - or at least the men and male refugees, that is - ought to stay and fight for their besieged and beleaguered homeland.
Though I'd already come to strong and clear ideas about this matter following the alluded-to discussions upon New Zealand talkback radio over recent months and years, I am indebted for a reading I did last Saturday which helped crystallize my thinking in a somewhat new and different direction, though withal essentially confirming my previous convictions. The serendipitous reading came through a classic tome of the World War Two era, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Commitment.
Having just checked the copyright legalities and ethics involved, let me quote an intriguing passage from p33 ('Memoir') about which I am extremely ambivalent, both profoundly disagreeing and yet concurring all at the same time; (not that hard, I'll readily concede, for an extremely conflicted person like myself!)
Noting that the following are not the words (or necessarily even the sentiments) of Bonhoeffer himself - indeed the memoir is attributed to a 'G. Leibholz' - we read the following commentary upon the relative guilt of respective (non-)participants in the maintenance of the political regime in 1930s' and 1940s' Nazi Germany:
It has often been said that those of the many who are not directly guilty for the crimes of the former regime in Germany must be punished for their passive attitude towards it. In a modern dictatorship, however, with its subterranean ubiquity and all-embracing instruments of oppression, a revolt means certain death to all who support it. To reproach in a modern tyranny a people as a whole for failing to revolt is as if one would reproach a prisoner for failing to escape from a heavily-guarded prison. The majority of the people in all nations alike does not consist of heroes. What Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others did cannot be expected from the many. The future in modern society depends much more on the quiet heroism of the very few who are inspired by God.These few will greatly enjoy the divine inspiration and will be prepared to stand for the dignity of man and true freedom and to keep the law of God, even if it means martyrdom or death.
In this regard, though not able to give a blanket, cast-iron **pardon to much less to find it within me to rationalize/excuse/justify the silence of the so-called 'silent majority' of Germans (or similar nations) whilst evil and barbarism stalked the land, I do indeed believe such shared some, even significant complicity in the conditions which thus obtained there during their period of conspicuous silence and passivity. And not only in Nazi Germany but throughout then Fascist and/or largely Nazi- sympathizing pre-'Eastern' (and even Western) Europe. Indeed both before and since that time, in the Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China...before even considering such much more modern-day counterparts as Pol Pot's Cambodia, post-Tito Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Myanmar/Burma etc etc etc.But let me leave that for another discussion hopefully in the not too distant future.
What I do take unreserved exception to, however, with these oftentimes glib and facile talkback hosts and their ready-made, re-actionary clientele and acolytes is they're only too ready to lay in to male Syrian refugees who risked bailing out from their self-imploding homeland than stay and fight to the (probably inevitably) bitter end.
All I, all anyone can really do, I suppose, is reflect upon what I, what they, would do in like circumstances. Or so I imagine - suppose - hypothesize - surmise...-but suppositions and the like are free and easy, and accordingly worth little, when it comes to the necessary work of translating mere noble-sounding ideals into concrete, practical, on-the-ground realities, aren't they. And we're all so very wise long after the facts have moved in permanently and hunkered down for good.
But would I, if proverbial push came to shove and the long-time hypothesized, oft-bandied about Maori uprising, of sovereignty-seeking indigenous New Zealanders, ever actually occurred, and morphed into a full-scale civil war? Quite frankly, I've little doubt I would bail out - for good - I just don't have enough invested in the matter...as in strong enough feelings and convictions that this land wasn't originally acquired unlawfully and maintained upon that unethical basis a heckuva long time.
Which is hardly the same as even remotely suggesting that European kiwis, at least c/o their governing representatives - of both major political parties especially - haven't done a whole lot more than equivalent peoples of almost any other nation upon Earth in recent times (or perhaps anytime in history) to significantly seek to redress major and minor grievances of the indigenous people (excepting Moriori of course!)
But I'm 'afraid' to admit I would bail out, hook, line and sinker - but not before, naturally enough, ascertaining the safety of each and every one near and dear to me, and, moreover, of seeking to aid one and all (of such) willing family in joining me in a new life overseas, if necessary by stowing away unbeknownst as 'cargo, incognito' upon boats bound for better climes.
Expecting me or anyone else to stay on and 'fight to the bitter end' in a modern-day re-enactment of Custer's Last Stand is, frankly, I respectfully submit, making a whole lot of assumptions about me (and others) that no-one has any right to, placing a bucket-load of expectations upon my and others' shoulders that are not only ill-conceived, but really none of your business - if you'll pardon my French. To put it as politely as possible in the circumstances.
For one thing, I might - quite legitimately - consider the whole thing/enterprise a lost cause (i.e. unlikely to ultimately succeed) to begin with. For another the cause itself might in fact be one I simply don't happen to share, to feel deeply or passionately enough about. And - perhaps far more significantly - my very life might be worth a whole lot more to me than some cause my heart wasn't really in from the start.
And though it always sounds great and carries a real wallop whenever you hear it, JFK's idea of 'better being dead than red' might have some real validity and pack a punch when one is required - by law - to resile/recant or be killed; I pray when such occurs in the not too distant that I may truly, by God's grace alone, prove myself worthy of dying for my thoroughgoing and heartfelt convictions; but when it is employed for lesser aims and goals and man-made ideologies however well-packaged and beautifully presented and convincingly spin-doctored...sorry, folks...this precious life I've been vouchsafed is too valuable a 'thing' to fritter away for such - comparative - trifles and baubles.
Somehow I strongly suspect, however, that those suggesting such self-sacrifice of others for what those armchair critics suppose should matter to those others, would themselves in like, in selfsame circumstances, bail out at the drop of a hat...would themselves often lack the the gumption, the guts, the balls (if you'll pardon my vernacular) to do-or-die themselves in such a situation...were it to present itself (in their own personal circumstances)...impacting upon their own life and times.
Hey, we're all essentially paper tigers until our own lives are on the actual line.
*Upon my other blogsite, that is: http://davidedwinisms.blogpost.co.nz/(or .com/)
**Nor, God forbid, is it my prerogative to do so! Seeing I am a mere mortal made of dust and subject to finitude; neither knowing everything (believe it or not!), being present only in one place at a time, and having very little power or might to effect things in my own little world let alone the world at large...in other words completely lacking in all those special prerogatives normally associated with and subscribed to divinity.
Though I'd already come to strong and clear ideas about this matter following the alluded-to discussions upon New Zealand talkback radio over recent months and years, I am indebted for a reading I did last Saturday which helped crystallize my thinking in a somewhat new and different direction, though withal essentially confirming my previous convictions. The serendipitous reading came through a classic tome of the World War Two era, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Commitment.
Having just checked the copyright legalities and ethics involved, let me quote an intriguing passage from p33 ('Memoir') about which I am extremely ambivalent, both profoundly disagreeing and yet concurring all at the same time; (not that hard, I'll readily concede, for an extremely conflicted person like myself!)
Noting that the following are not the words (or necessarily even the sentiments) of Bonhoeffer himself - indeed the memoir is attributed to a 'G. Leibholz' - we read the following commentary upon the relative guilt of respective (non-)participants in the maintenance of the political regime in 1930s' and 1940s' Nazi Germany:
It has often been said that those of the many who are not directly guilty for the crimes of the former regime in Germany must be punished for their passive attitude towards it. In a modern dictatorship, however, with its subterranean ubiquity and all-embracing instruments of oppression, a revolt means certain death to all who support it. To reproach in a modern tyranny a people as a whole for failing to revolt is as if one would reproach a prisoner for failing to escape from a heavily-guarded prison. The majority of the people in all nations alike does not consist of heroes. What Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others did cannot be expected from the many. The future in modern society depends much more on the quiet heroism of the very few who are inspired by God.These few will greatly enjoy the divine inspiration and will be prepared to stand for the dignity of man and true freedom and to keep the law of God, even if it means martyrdom or death.
In this regard, though not able to give a blanket, cast-iron **pardon to much less to find it within me to rationalize/excuse/justify the silence of the so-called 'silent majority' of Germans (or similar nations) whilst evil and barbarism stalked the land, I do indeed believe such shared some, even significant complicity in the conditions which thus obtained there during their period of conspicuous silence and passivity. And not only in Nazi Germany but throughout then Fascist and/or largely Nazi- sympathizing pre-'Eastern' (and even Western) Europe. Indeed both before and since that time, in the Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China...before even considering such much more modern-day counterparts as Pol Pot's Cambodia, post-Tito Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Myanmar/Burma etc etc etc.But let me leave that for another discussion hopefully in the not too distant future.
What I do take unreserved exception to, however, with these oftentimes glib and facile talkback hosts and their ready-made, re-actionary clientele and acolytes is they're only too ready to lay in to male Syrian refugees who risked bailing out from their self-imploding homeland than stay and fight to the (probably inevitably) bitter end.
All I, all anyone can really do, I suppose, is reflect upon what I, what they, would do in like circumstances. Or so I imagine - suppose - hypothesize - surmise...-but suppositions and the like are free and easy, and accordingly worth little, when it comes to the necessary work of translating mere noble-sounding ideals into concrete, practical, on-the-ground realities, aren't they. And we're all so very wise long after the facts have moved in permanently and hunkered down for good.
But would I, if proverbial push came to shove and the long-time hypothesized, oft-bandied about Maori uprising, of sovereignty-seeking indigenous New Zealanders, ever actually occurred, and morphed into a full-scale civil war? Quite frankly, I've little doubt I would bail out - for good - I just don't have enough invested in the matter...as in strong enough feelings and convictions that this land wasn't originally acquired unlawfully and maintained upon that unethical basis a heckuva long time.
Which is hardly the same as even remotely suggesting that European kiwis, at least c/o their governing representatives - of both major political parties especially - haven't done a whole lot more than equivalent peoples of almost any other nation upon Earth in recent times (or perhaps anytime in history) to significantly seek to redress major and minor grievances of the indigenous people (excepting Moriori of course!)
But I'm 'afraid' to admit I would bail out, hook, line and sinker - but not before, naturally enough, ascertaining the safety of each and every one near and dear to me, and, moreover, of seeking to aid one and all (of such) willing family in joining me in a new life overseas, if necessary by stowing away unbeknownst as 'cargo, incognito' upon boats bound for better climes.
Expecting me or anyone else to stay on and 'fight to the bitter end' in a modern-day re-enactment of Custer's Last Stand is, frankly, I respectfully submit, making a whole lot of assumptions about me (and others) that no-one has any right to, placing a bucket-load of expectations upon my and others' shoulders that are not only ill-conceived, but really none of your business - if you'll pardon my French. To put it as politely as possible in the circumstances.
For one thing, I might - quite legitimately - consider the whole thing/enterprise a lost cause (i.e. unlikely to ultimately succeed) to begin with. For another the cause itself might in fact be one I simply don't happen to share, to feel deeply or passionately enough about. And - perhaps far more significantly - my very life might be worth a whole lot more to me than some cause my heart wasn't really in from the start.
And though it always sounds great and carries a real wallop whenever you hear it, JFK's idea of 'better being dead than red' might have some real validity and pack a punch when one is required - by law - to resile/recant or be killed; I pray when such occurs in the not too distant that I may truly, by God's grace alone, prove myself worthy of dying for my thoroughgoing and heartfelt convictions; but when it is employed for lesser aims and goals and man-made ideologies however well-packaged and beautifully presented and convincingly spin-doctored...sorry, folks...this precious life I've been vouchsafed is too valuable a 'thing' to fritter away for such - comparative - trifles and baubles.
Somehow I strongly suspect, however, that those suggesting such self-sacrifice of others for what those armchair critics suppose should matter to those others, would themselves in like, in selfsame circumstances, bail out at the drop of a hat...would themselves often lack the the gumption, the guts, the balls (if you'll pardon my vernacular) to do-or-die themselves in such a situation...were it to present itself (in their own personal circumstances)...impacting upon their own life and times.
Hey, we're all essentially paper tigers until our own lives are on the actual line.
*Upon my other blogsite, that is: http://davidedwinisms.blogpost.co.nz/(or .com/)
**Nor, God forbid, is it my prerogative to do so! Seeing I am a mere mortal made of dust and subject to finitude; neither knowing everything (believe it or not!), being present only in one place at a time, and having very little power or might to effect things in my own little world let alone the world at large...in other words completely lacking in all those special prerogatives normally associated with and subscribed to divinity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)