Debate About the War on Terrorism to Discover the Real Freedom of Democracy

This is an interesting documentary from the perspective of Al Jazeera inviting a diverse range of viewpoints.  It highlights the core issue of national security, surveillance and the mnimising of civil liberties as the diminuation of democracy.  The core arguments for military aggression have been in the defence of democracy yet ironically democracy is being unravelled given domestic and international ‘threats’.  The word ‘threat’ is interesting.  I regard threats as a problem to be solved from a nonviolent perspective.  To stand in the shoes of others is one of the keys to understanding the argument from their perspective, this opens the mind to the intent and motivation of people.  Is it really a question of mass surveillance or is it better to look at equalising those who may feel persecuted domestically on the basis of a characteristic (discrimination).  Integrating people into society as inclusion is more effective than stigmatisation.  If muslims feel threatened that will move them towards others that protect them.  Division is not a strategy of peace, it is critical to look for the humanity of each other in order to unify people and to then focus on the radicalisation in western society and in islamic society in my view is revealed through conservatism which is unquestioned.  Extremism has many faces but the one face they share is intolerance.  To de-escalate violence you have to open dialogue, you have to learn to listen, to stand in their shoes (empathy) and the dynamics that fuel conflict and then investigate the history from a range of perspectives (not one orientation).  It is to look at who wins and who loses from endless conflict.  It is to then explore the inner discord of fear that drives belief systems that see a threat rather than an opportunity to learn as it has turned up.  It is to look at cultural values that a perspective believes is ‘right’ rather than ‘different’.  To look at ourselves in a range of ways:  what role have we played in escalating conflict, what role has the media played, what roles has the government played, what role has business played in the fuelling of conflict.  To look at this on all sides.

To find the truth requires a open mind.  I know from my background in peace that all negativity is untrue given who we really are as humans.  The negativity comes from beliefs and fears.  The fears reflect psychological fear of safety, loss of control, loss of power, suspicion, anger, hatred and so on.  To transmute fear is to look for what is being learned, to understand what has come out of this contrast, to determine how we see ourselves, to look for solutions that may reveal the ‘good’, the ‘hope’, the ‘shared’ understandings and ‘concerns’.  To find a pathway that meets in the middle that allows for the idea that ‘I could be wrong’, ‘there may be more to this than I see’, ‘there are always two sides’, ‘there are hidden factors’, ‘there is possibility’.  To open up to questions, to set aside prejudice and to really sit with solutions and envisage a way can be found.  Often people wake up in the middle of the night with ideas, I know I do.  I like the idea ‘there is something in this that I do not know the knowing of it would change everything’.  This is to sit on the precipice of wisdom not war.  You cannot have a war on terror, you can only realise the wars within are not real and that you cannot destroy terror as the very act of seeking to destroy it creates more terror as the root problem is aggression.  This is the pink elephant in the room.  Democracy is the marketing symbols to rally others to fight around it.  You cannot fight for democracy, as democracy is about diffusing tension by allowing people to dialogue around the table to discuss perspectives as equals.  It is about respecting people’s rights to have an opinion, to be allowed to dissent or differ without being demonised or labelled as somehow the ‘enemy’.  We see this playout in sport, in the courts and war games.  The intolerance of different views or ways is not democracy it becomes a form of conservative fascism where ‘my way or the highway’ is the underlying mindset.  Contested ideas spoken are deemed as threatening rather than an oppportunity to explore the more complex questions and to investigate another point of view as we don’t know the big picture no matter our evidence.  I have sat with a person with radical ideas extremely different from mine, I sat with them and listened and observed.  I saw the person was unresolved, I saw the person suppressing his anger, I saw him march out when challenged by another, I realised he was still haunted by his demons.  It is my own inner sense of love that guides me to listen with an open mind. I can’t be radicalised as I follow myself.  My allegience is to love that means I cannot hate anyone, as only love is real for me.  I cannot get on bandwagons and target people dividing into ‘them and us’.  I can ask questions.  I can ask for people to talk and learn from each other.  I can express myself.  I can share.  I cannot dislike them as I respect their right to their view and I see beyond the mask of beliefs.  I recognise that from where they stand they think it is true.  they could be right from their viewpoint.  They have their stories, as do I.  The only thing I know is true is that hatred/fear divides and love/understanding/compassion unites.  That is the pathway of peace that will de-escalate all wars on terror, drugs, women, religion, communism, indigenous, business etc. etc. etc.  Love is the pathway that unites this dysfunctional family.  Can you find where they are in you.  Can you see your own dictator, your own terror, your own persecution, judgement, unfairness, corruption and so on.  This is why it is said:  “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank inyour own eye?  Can you go inside and investigate yourself with honesty before pointing the finger of blame.  They say the pointed finger of blame has another 3 fingers pointing back to the acuser, there is truth in this.  What we see in others is in the self otherwise we could not see it.   Was it not said We see as we are not as they are.  Can we go there?  Until we do we will continue to construct a intelligence/surveillance apparatus that when it finishes with one enemy will find another.  What happens when the public is the enemy?  Those who differ or say what they think, are they the enemy?  Are they a potential threat?  Could they unify others and challenge you or your worldview?  Or is it in your own mind that these wars are playing out in. Are you creating the enemy when the snake is really a rope on the path.  Suddenly there are snakes everywhere when really the critic was throwing a rope to you, to bring you out of hell.  What if the enemy was your greatest teacher.  What if they want what you want?  What then?  And so it goes.

In my world view there is no enemy only thinking make it so. Until I stop my wars the wars cannot stop as they are me.  Until I embrace peace in me I cannot ask others to make peace.  So I continue to work on love, I continue to deal with inner conflict, I continue to question myself until the truth sets me free and that is the peace that passeth all understanding.

So here is a good video from Al Jazeera, who I recall were bombed in Iraqas a potential enemy.  Can you sit at the table as some of the guests did and actually have a debate rather than using surveillance to look for an enemy.  Why not look for the truth instead?  Another path will open before you then we can genuinely find that pathway to real peace and security.  It will never be found in violence.  Never.  Peace is the way and the life.  I send love to all.