Lao Tzu: War, Peace and Video Games

This book inspired me when I was 26. I found it at a Philosophy course in London, I found the session was too ‘I’ oriented, Western Philosophical thought, I was looking for something deeper. I found Lao Tzu and deeply connected to this wise old man, who was regarded as a sage in China. He wrote a small book called the Tao Te Ching or Dao De Jing, there are a multitude of translations, the one I found was the Richard Whilhem edition. I felt an instant resonance.

This poem below I read out at a Arts Cafe performance with my former partner Kabir. He was a surrealist painter. The way the performance went I would read out Lao Tzu then Kabir showed his painting then I read the poetry that I had written for the painting. This was a one off show, but it was a profound experience.

Below Lao Tzu is speaking of war. I myself have spoken to a range of soldiers Australian and US. I interviewed Major Douglas Rokke, the former Head of the Depleted Uranium Project in the Pentagon and Scott Ritter former Weapons Inspector in Iraq. I met many other soldiers, Andrew Wilkie former Office of National Assessment, and some along the way, that were regular soldiers. All agreed it is horrendous. Scott Ritter saw it as tragic but believed at times it was necessary. When I asked Major Rokke what he thought about war, he said it is about killing period. Of course we hear terms in the media which lighten it such as collatoral damage (civilians), friendly fire (killing allies), the enemy, precision bombing, clearing areas (killing people), bunker busters (mini nukes) and so it goes on. The idea is to sanitise war so that the public can digest it so it doesn’t sound so bad.

I remember attending a lecture at the Australian National University where a Iraqi Doctor desperately showed footage of deliberate targetting of civilians (US footage) where the cross hairs moved to target a group of people. A strategy of war is to target civilians to create maximum shock and fear. The dropping of cluster bombs in the shape of toys was also raised, the idea was for children to pick them up, apparently this creates a distraction for parents trying to care for injured children, they cannot be engaged in the war.

The very idea of murdering someone for me is just horrifying, but listening to Scott Ritter in his lecture at University of Melbourne state uncategorically that he would have no hesitation in killing someone that threatened him in some way, is a world I don’t understand. That is just something I can’t imagine. The fact that they have no issue with any killing at all, I find alarming. I am a World Peace Clown, my life is dedicated to the opposite, loving people.

In reality that is war, it is about killing and it is government sanctioned. Yet if a civilian kills then that is different. I don’t see how anymore. There were wars where people were defending their country, today it appears more about furthering vested interests or those in power trying to remain there.

Does war solve the problem or escalate the crisis? Some may say fear works, and they would be right it does. If you are afraid you lock your door, terrified of a knock. However, in the greater scheme of things do we have a world at peace? Are we able to get to a point where conflict resolution becomes the norm and all people are trained at the local level to learn how to de-escalate conflict by being open to finding out the problem from the other person and being able to express their truth nonviolently? How about peace keepers (soldiers), learning conflict resolution and psychology.

I remember when I worked briefly for the police (many were former military I discovered) they were learning psychology and many going on to university. Can you imagine if violence was considered the absolute last resort and other strategies to ensure peace such as conflict resolution, problem solving, negotiation, traditional means were implemented first. Then maybe we could see the military as a service rather then feel fear. The statistics are 90% of civilians are casualties of war, that has reversed from traditional warfare in WWI.

Byron Katie (www.thework.com) talks about defence as the first act of war. I find that a very interesting idea. Just imagine if we dropped our arms (guns), how much courage would we have to face problems nonviolently? Scott Ritter said he believed the bravest people were in the pacifist movement, those who were nonviolent. I would agree. I think standing up against a tyrant without a desire to cause harm is incredibly brave and reveals inner strength. There is no pay there, no government support, no accolades, no ticker tape parade, just the possibility someone may knock on your door and shoot you or a car bomb.

In my previous blog I briefly mentioned Peace Brigades International as providing protective accompaniament of human rights activists. I met some of the team in Melbourne and learned about them in Peace Stuides at La Trobe University. These guys were over in West Papua and gave many talks on the human rights violations. Interestingly enough the Tsunami provided the environment for peace talks (nature came to the rescue). The idea of protective accompaniament is to have a unarmed person accompanying an activist to witness how they are treated, harrassed or in danger of violence. The PBI monitor’s presence is the international shield which protects the activist, as they will report to the world this persons situation and if their rights are violated. Authorities note this and in many cases the activist is safe. However, there are occasions when they are killed. These unarmed people are very brave. The PBI monitors are not paid to be there, just living expenses, they do it because they believe in justice, human rights and freedom of speech. In many countries this right is not afforded. So nonviolence is for the brave, not the weak.

Unfortunately we don’t have video games promoting peacemakers where winning becomes devising strategy to solve violent problems, instead we get children to participate in mindless games that score points when you kill. The game informs and educates about weapons, crime and anti-social behaviour. It encourages bullying as power over others, it is seen as being a warrior. That is what major Rokke called soldiers, so did Scott Ritter. I found the term suprising like a tribal pseudonym, subconsciously trying to find his ancient manhood. The video games are seen as a right for video game makers, it is fine it is not real but what is the reality behind that belief? I question the outcome of societal values that think this is fine. One of my friends who says she is into peace says the pressure is unbearable, she tries to console herself that it is not real, they are boys. Moreover, many middle aged men protest any criticism saying it is fine, we know it is not real, but they don’t understand the underlying conditioning in their own minds as an acceptance of military tactics as problem solving and it is very life like. The children are often with them watching it. They see the parent laughing, they laugh, it is legitimised. These games have the capability where children can scan their faces this makes it more and more real. To kill someone is to win. In my view as a trained conflict resolution person, it is a lose/lose. It makes war and killing fine, a boy thing, in truth it is not masculine, men have just been conditioned that it is connected to their manhood and they focus on bravery and heroism to make it legitimate. The psychology of the military utilise words such as freedom, honour, do your duty, but if this ends up like the War in Iraq where so many innocent people died, with an embedded media that just parrotted the military/government line without any analysis to find in the end the issue was not weapons of mass destruction that it was a political move to win an election and get rid of a leader. How then do we regard war, defence or an illegimate war of aggression? (Scott Ritter)

I wonder what love would do? No-one asks that question, too soft and fluffy for political/military men (and women) trained to disconnect feeling and empathy, yet it is the greatest power on earth, it is life itself and it is deeply empowering. Gandhi stated nonviolence is a force more powerful, he was right. This is sustainability of life, in its truest form. We as a world community are yet to understand that. Lao Tzu did 600 BC.

This is Lao Tzu’s voice it is still true today. Wisdom is eternal.

Lao Tzu – Tao Te Ching

Weapons are instruments of bad omen:
all beings, I believe, loathe them.
Therefore, whosoever has the true DAO
does not want to know about them.

The noble man, in his ordinary life,
considers the left the place of honour.
In the art of warfare the right is the place of honour.
Weapons are instruments of bad omen,
not instruments for the noble.
He uses them only when he cannot help it.

Quietness and peace are his highest values.
He gains victory but he does not rejoice in it.
Whosoever would rejoice in it would, in fact, rejoice in the murder of men.
Whosoever would rejoice in the murder of men cannot achieve his goal in the world.

In fortunate circumstances one considers the left the place of honour,
In unfortunate circumstances one considers the right the place of honour.
The vice-commander stands to the left,
the supreme commander to the right.
This means: he takes his place
according to the rules of memorial services.

Killing men in great numbers
one must bewail with tears of compassion.
Whosoever has been victorious in battle
shall linger as if attending a memorial service.