2.4.5 A Few Interesting Parallels!

From time to time I explore aspects of protection-of-vulnerable-people which I think is relevant but which others may not. This is one of those Sub-Chapters and it is about our attitudes to violence in society and the world at large. If you have no interest in such an exploration you can skip to the Conclusion of this Chapter, which is the next Sub-Chapter.

Like a previous Sub-Chapter it has a polemical bent to it and, if you do read it, I invite further comment, criticism, debate etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did a training course some years ago entitled Alternatives to Violence Programme (AVP).  This was originally developed by the Quaker community in conjunction with people (mostly lifers, I believe) in Sing-Sing Prison. Its non-violent principles are based on what it calls transforming power and I found it a very challenging as well as rewarding experience.

Many people who end up in prison do not manage their anger that well and it is true to say that virtually all criminal activity involves violence of some sort.  Whether the crime involves the taking of a life or stealing someone’s car, the victim’s human rights have been violated.  The AVP challenges participants to take responsibility for their behaviour when under pressure in relationships with their peers on the prison landings. 

The long-term hope is that they will bring their learning out to their families and their communities, enabling them to have more democratic, healthier relationships on release.

But in our world it is not only people who are in prison who are violent, or could benefit from the Alternative to Violence Programme!

In fact, there appears to be no aspect of human existence more surrounded by ambivalence, hypocrisy and double-think than violence.

The reason I say this is that we continually state how much we abhor it on one hand, but, on the other hand, have chosen it to resolve disputes since time immemorial.

I would say that, as an overall proportion of our world population, there is only a small percentage of people, at any one time, being violent to others.  The vast majority of us humans live most if not all of our lives in relative peace.

I know that this is not much solace to anyone experiencing violence, bullying, whether it is in the home, on the street, by criminal elements or the security forces, or in a devastating war where tens or hundreds are being killed, maimed or starved to death daily.

Violence induces such an emotional reaction in us that sometimes when reading papers or listening to radio/TV one would think that the whole world is at war and/or being violent all the time. And all the history that I learned in school (it may be different now – I hope it is) was about violent confrontation of one kind or another.

Since 2016 we in Ireland have been commemorating the violent events of 1916 which led to the War of Independence in 1919 and then the Civil War which ended in 1923. The total casualties of that period amounted to about 5,000 people, quite a substantial number for a country with a population of about 4 million as we were at the time.  (This would have been the equivalent of over 50,000 casualties in, say the UK or France).  The beginning of the commemorations were marked, in Easter 2016, by glorious celebration, pomp, ceremony, song and dance and military parades.

As I was watching the events on TV, and, like most people, marveling at the well-organised spectacle, I was pondering on the efforts that go into legitimising violence, so that the nation state will be able to recruit and then order selected citizens to be violent on its behalf when the situation demands it.  These efforts are so subtle and yet so effective that we are obviously well groomed into believing that violence is an acceptable solution to conflict.

In our highly developed countries in the Western World, development doesn’t seem to include vigorous promotion of non-violence, or, as I stated in a previous post; Our Right To Life.

And conflict seems to energise us in a different way to cooperation.

The Pillars, for example, are continually in a kind of low-level conflict that uses up energy, often sucking the dynamism and vitality out of good ideas that might lead to innovative work.  I often observe this seemingly never-ending disconnection in efforts that go into ventures that are set up to assist our Focus Group. (See also this post).

As I mentioned in the previous Chapter the media constantly focus on conflict so that we are at all times in a state of moderate excitement.  In my own life and work I have sometimes found myself getting excited by the prospect of conflict. On reflection, however, I usually came to the conclusion that conflict was not what was needed at all.

Getting back to 1916 and subsequent years, I have very mixed feelings about high-profile commemoration of such events, however tasteful they are, with a stunning military parade as the principal spectacle, or show of strength. 

This is because I think that they lean too far towards celebrations of militarism – something that we might be better off if we toned down!

A few years ago the then Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, directed that there would be no further overt displays of anything that would glorify gangland culture at funerals of young men who had been involved in criminal activity, and killed during so-called turf wars and other violent conflict.

And how right he was.

Yet I do not hear Church leaders criticising displays that glorify militarism at our national days of commemoration to honour Irish men and women who have died and/or killed others in wars and military conflicts.

Now I know why this is so – gangland killings are, to all of us, abhorrent, whereas our soldiers are there to protect us – and we are proud of them.

This Sub-Chapter will propose that militarism (including the glorious sacrifice mentioned in another post) and displaying (in some countries) domination, military success and expansion as examples of strength is the hallmark of the insecure.

On the other hand, an inner felt sense of security promotes equality, compassion, vulnerability, acceptance of difference, awareness of others’ rights as human beings, and fairness.

If you find yourself interested in an alternative view, read on ……..

I mentioned in another post that the scholarly and one-time mentor of mine Col E.D. Doyle used to say that there is always an army in a country – and if it’s not the army of the country – it’s an occupying army.

This is allied to the disturbing fact that if a country is small and/or defenceless, it runs the risk of being bullied by a greater power if it gets in the greater power’s way.  (In Ireland we had direct experience of this over some centuries). So we maintain a standing army to defend ourselves – and, obviously, as I said in the previous post, we will be proud of those who defend us, and hold them in high esteem.

This is probably why we revere the military, (indeed our national anthem is entitled Amhrán na bhFiann – The Soldier’s Song) [1] even though the very existence of the military is manifestation of how the norm for humans, over thousands of years of evolution, has been to resolve conflict using violence – that which we profess to abhor!

I believe that having an army is qualitatively different to having a house alarm to protect us against the random miscreant who is robbing houses to feed his drug addiction.

Indeed, I am sure that, throughout history, organised military forces were developed to conquer, not to defend.  Or if they were organised to defend, it was almost certainly to defend against people who were angry because their lands had been taken forcibly, (like the iconic US Cavalry in the Wild West defending settler outposts), or they rose up because they had been disadvantaged in some way or another, e.g. sold into slavery,

But the overwhelming evidence (certainly in written history) would point to military forces being organised to conquer for economic gain – mostly involving exploitation and plunder. In this, ordinary people are manipulated by the powerful, fear dominates trust, the prevailing opinion in problem-solving leans towards violence, and people become desensitised to the real purposes of exploitation and subsequent war.

And entire populations are willing to live in fear [2] rather than give up the privileges that colonial adventure brings.

Ireland is, generally, not a war-mongering country – and our soldiers are highly regarded and respected in international peacekeeping missions because of that – but if we are honest we need to admit that we derive considerable economic benefit from the actions of countries of the Western World that have been, and some might argue, still are.

I think that those of us who want our children and grandchildren to be safe need to acknowledge that there is little or no evidence to show that prominent world leaders mean it when they say that they want peace.

The reason that I say this is that their actions do not match their words!

There are loads of examples not only from history, but also from today, of major (and some minor) political leaders deliberately stirring things up, fomenting trouble and goading each other – all to protect their interests. At best, they are blind to the consequences of their decision, and appear to be under the control of more sinister forces!

In many cases it is hard to argue with conspiracy theorists who maintain that low-level, proxy wars are test grounds for advanced weapon systems making a fortune for big corporations in developed countries and the best possible scenario is to keep the pot bubbling but not allow it to boil over – an expression I remember someone using at some stage.

And if men, women and children in far off lands (and some soldiers from belligerent countries) have to be sacrificed in this venture so what?  Their lives are always well down the order of importance in the greater scheme of things.

[1]. The final two lines of which are Le gunnai scréach, faoi lamhach na bpiléar, seo libh canaigh Amhrán na bhFiann which translated is mid cannon’s roar and rifles peal, we’ll chant a soldier’s song.

[2]. I deliberately use the present tense here because colonial adventure is still going on throughout the world.

It is well documented in reliable, measured accounts that ordinary people become brutalised in war. Now when I say brutalised, I mean that in addition to enemy soldiers, non-combatants including children and people who are unable to defend themselves are injured, killed, rendered homeless, humiliated, raped and their basic human rights violated. It would appear that something terrible happens to us (or at least a critical mass of us) and we become killing machines.

So how are the nicest of young men (and nowadays young women) from the most upright and honest families turned into (potentially) killers?

Some years ago I came across a little booklet dated from World War One – issued by the UK War Office. [1] It was entitled ‘When I Join the Ranks’. It was a very interesting read, almost quaint, promoting all that was good and healthy about military service but making no mention of the horror facing soldiers in war, nor the grief, sadness and suffering of families bereaved. The purpose of the text was, of course, to get young men (most probably conscripts) to think of the positive aspects of military life.

This is not untypical of the process of desensitisation that continues to this day.

Apart from the very explicit messages in such publications, another way to desensitise is to get immature, impressionable young men and women to think a certain way to the point that they are not even aware that they have an option not to do what they are told to do – really. (And, once again, aware is the important word here).

In the military, common-sense thinking becomes subservient to army thinking. This, of course, gives rise to great comedy (e.g. films like M-A-S-H, Kelly’s Heroes, even TV series like Blackadder, Dad’s Army, Sgt. Bilko and many similar productions) as the struggle between common-sense and what has to be done at the behest of the military is lampooned. (Myth and Reality, in a more general sense, will be further explored in a later post).

I will digress here to observe that there are very few films or series of that type – so popular a few decades ago. Or, if there are, I do not know of them. Perhaps the reason for this lies in the post on the media where I discussed how the media focuses on what is familiar and/or fashionable. Such sentiment was fashionable at that time – not so now. Is this because of a general trend towards glorification of making war – driven by neoliberalism and the corporate world of the military-industrial complex? [2]

Perhaps such films and/or programmes challenged the desensitisation process, which is almost always accompanied by group-think.

Let me explain what I mean here.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, in the Republic of Ireland, the establishment, (the Pillars at that time) would have deemed the Provisional IRA to be our enemy. Not only were they bent on overthrowing the government in Northern Ireland, they intended to destabilise the Republic too. It was not that easy to speak in their defence in any circumstance, or give a measured response to the general situation of the Troubles. (For younger readers, have a think about our current mainstream opinion – the group-think – on what we call Islamic terrorism).

Anyone who even thought differently (not to mention people who went out on the street and protested peacefully, or were against the established order in some other way) were subtly portrayed as some sort of an enemy of the state. These might have been organisations like Amnesty International, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament CND), the then Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement. Even organisations like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth were, by some, seen to be fellow travellers, promoters of anti-establishment sentiment, at best naive eccentrics, and/or at risk of being infiltrated by what were known as subversives – people who were a danger to the State.

Once again, I merely mention the above as my observations.  I invite you to make up your own mind and come to your conclusions.

[1]. Actually I Googled the booklet and found it in a website selling memorabilia – which is where I got the link above!

[2]. Yet another desensitisation process (very popular in the so-called Allied countries that fought in the 20th Century World Wars) is symbolism, such as the wearing of the poppy. The poppy commemorates those who died pointlessly on the fields of France during trench warfare in World War 1. If the soldiers who suffered in trenches on both sides (or their families, or children) could speak, my guess is that they would consider a fitting commemoration to be the winding down of the industry that produced the weapons that killed them rather than an annual wearing of a flower that would grow over their graves. This is also an example of the denial mentioned in this post on Politics and Addiction.

This Sub-Chapter on Interesting Parallels aims to raise our awareness a little bit – particularly in the area of us and them when it comes to our attitudes to violence.  This post is oriented towards my native land, Ireland, so it may not apply to you if you are reading from a country other than Ireland – or maybe it will!

I have often wondered how we, ordinary people that regard ourselves as ethical, compassionate, upright, rational, reasonable, and responsible are conditioned to accept that waging war is an acceptable method of resolving conflict, even though war-waging is almost always based on half-truths if not total lies. [1].

Wondering about this led me to consider the similarities and differences between us – law abiding responsible citizens – and them, those who get involved in criminality, violence, turf-wars, and suchlike.

While I know that in Ireland, since the foundation of our state, we have never invaded anyone, we do directly assist (and in other cases turn a blind eye) to imperial powers (and former imperial powers) who are engaged in wars of aggression [2].

This is despite the fact that we are a country that is supposedly neutral, i.e. not a member of any military alliance, and that our ancestors suffered substantial loss of life from war, famine, enslavement, poverty, emigration, exclusion etc. over four centuries.

Here are a number of points to reflect on in respect of our support for powerful countries that visit terrible suffering on (for us, faraway) countries with vulnerable populations.  As you read them, I’d like you to, just as an exercise, compare the parallels between us and what we commonly refer to as gangland criminality. [3]

Can you think of others?

(No. 6 above – the distinct hierarchy – is particularly notable today, as the level of criticism for the invasion of Ukraine by Russia – under false pretences – has evoked far more criticism and indeed direct action than previous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the USA – equally under false pretences – a country that we are culturally close to and/or dependent on).

Now in the following Table, we will consider the different context.  The different context might offer us clues as to why we the general public don’t see the above parallels clearly.

In the Table above, point 8 (individual and family) is particularly relevant.  Two of the most debilitating human emotions (that are uniquely human) are guilt and shame. To be thought little of by the majority of people in society can inflict a lot of harm on a person or group of people. (Here is a song that I wrote in which I attempt to portray the impact of guilt and shame on someone who has been to prison).

Getting back to the esteem in which we hold the military, it is, of course, because we perceive the military as a disciplined group that keeps us safe whereas we perceive criminals as undisciplined people who we live our lives in fear of – so naturally enough we think little of them and want to put some distance between us and them. In fact, I have often observed that ordinary citizens are angrier with soldiers who commit crimes than they are with criminals in general.

And anyone who has ever served in an army will know that the man (or woman) who tends towards undisciplined violence makes a bad soldier.

[1].  This is true of all wars of aggression – the most obvious one being the pretext on which the war in Iraq was fought in the early 2000’s – i.e. that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which gave him the capability to do serious harm to countries in the Western World.  The justification for the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia was also based on lies. How many people died/are dying because of these deliberate fabrications?

[2].  Firstly, for many decades now the Irish Government has allowed US military aircraft land in Shannon Airport transiting between the USA and wars in the Middle East.  Secondly, we have not spoken out, at Government level, in the European Union, objecting to member states supporting such wars, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the countries in which they are waged.

[3]. I distinguish criminals in gangs, as part of a hierarchy with a leader of the gang, from criminals who are opportunistic addicts, random joyriders, people who assault others in rows after pubs at night etc. though of course some of those who are randomly criminal in their youth might graduate to being junior members in gangs and climb the ranks.

[4]. A feature of adolescence is attaching oneself to a group, temporarily internalising the power of the group while one is forming one’s own unique identity.  Many young men are very needy in this regard.

[5]. Some years ago a general amnesty was issued by our Government to all who deserted our Army during The Emergency (1939-45) and joined the British Army.  Effectively we pardoned those who left our National Army in our hour of need and joined a foreign Army that had detailed plans to invade us should we not toe their line. This must be unique, and one of the most generous gestures in world history.

Now what is not as well-known is the fact that soldiers deserted our Army after Bloody Sunday in 1972 to protect Catholics in Northern Ireland, for much the same reason as the Emergency years deserters i.e. they didn’t believe that our State was doing enough to protect our fellow citizens.  I’m not sure if they were ever pardoned.  If they were I don’t remember hearing it on the main evening news! (See this post).

Now there is another interesting note on violence in society which I’d like to mention.

The nation state that maintains a standing army, and that gives its approval to carrying out violent acts on its behalf, will almost always have, throughout history, been formed by violence itself– including our own. (This is dealt with at some length by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, referenced already).

But at some point in time along a nation’s history, (with the notable exception of the USA), the vast majority of the population are disarmed and then a smaller number (Army and Police) are armed to defend the country against invaders and/or maintain internal order over the vast majority that are unarmed.  Given the number of countries in the world where the general population are unarmed, this seems to work reasonably well – and in the one country that I know of (the USA) where the general public were never disarmed, (in fact, have a constitutional right to carry weapons), it seems to bring a lot of problems.

However a very troubling reality (at least for the developed world) is that, because of our greed and hunger for more and more wealth, we use our developed status to manufacture arms and sell them to countries at war, or whose governments do not respect human rights – thereby being indirectly responsible for death, hardship, poverty, famine in faraway places.

And it is surely a measure of the effectiveness of the desensitisation, over hundreds of years, to the realities of state violence – indeed, seeing it as a necessary part of our world – that we do not feel very ashamed of our Western World and particularly our European tradition in this regard. 

Scientists and engineers invent anti-personnel mines that blow off a soldier’s leg but will not kill him.  The purpose of this is to cause maximum distress to his comrades who can hear his screams of pain but are helpless to go to his assistance because they are in a minefield. Scientists and engineers invent flammable gas that adheres to people’s skin thereby causing an unimaginably painful death.  I could go on and on but I think you know where I am going with this.

I am sure that most of these scientists and engineers go home in the evening and tuck their children into bed, their consciences untroubled. 

Scientists and engineers, mostly highly academically intelligent, who develop weapons, are, of course, just like the rest of us.  Some are emotionally intelligent – for example see this link to an organisation known as the Union of Concerned Scientists – and some are emotionally very needy.  Those who are needy have always been exploited by powerful people to further their own ends. (I explore various aspects of intelligence here).

It is reasonable to wonder if corporate closed-ness, allied closely to the military industrial complex (whose power I discuss in the next post) has prevented scientists from thinking deeply, because thinking deeply threatens the myth that we will be safer if we develop more sophisticated weapons.

And surely it is proof of the power of the mixture of fear, conditioning, perpetuation of values, and denial that we can invent and manufacture devices that inflict terrible injury and death on some humans in distant lands while we can lovingly tuck other humans into bed. (I refer to this as ambivalence in another part of the website).

(Here is a song where I try to touch into the struggle between the overwhelming power of the military-industrial complex and the desire that we all have to be responsible humans).

I have already described how acceptance of this myth of safety by highly educated scientists, engineers etc. in countries that called themselves civilised, and advanced – caused the terrible tragedies of the World Wars of the 20^th Century.

When nations reach out to each other in a genuine way with the intention of reducing armaments it has resulted in – if not peace – at least lesser likelihood of war.

The hugely successful and profitable weapons industry is the most notable and damaging effects of corporate closed-ness in the world.

I stated in a previous post that an important element of military induction and training is coaching us to favour myth over common-sense reality.

To illustrate the kind of contradiction that is inherent in the world of not only the military, but security forces in general, in Western countries, that pride themselves on being democratic, soldiers and police (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) are not allowed join a Peace Movement, or a Non-Violence Movement.

Now surely the people who would most want peace are those who will be killed first if war breaks out. That is common-sense reality!

Banning soldiers from joining peace movements probably makes sense in a country that sees itself as an imperial power which has been making war all over the world for many centuries.  But it has no logic in a neutral country that prides itself on having a peacekeeping role in the world, as Ireland does. I don’t believe that we are well served by prohibiting members of our Army to join civilian organisations promoting non-violence.

The reason that they are prohibited, of course, is that there is a fear among the Government (as there is in every country – that I know of anyway) that within Peace Movements are people who are promoting values or planning activities that are harmful to our country.

But equally, there may not be!

And even if there are, surely the presence of members of our Army (and Gardaí indeed) in the movements would reduce the influence of those who are subversive, while promoting the values of those wonderful people who are there to genuinely promote peace – as the vast majority are.

I had experience of this in the 1980’s when Ronald Reagan, President of USA at that time, visited Ireland.  In those days the USA was interfering militarily (directly and indirectly) in Central and South American Countries.  In fact, there was overwhelming evidence that the USA had supported right wing juntas in such countries that had been (and were) responsible for thousands if not tens of thousands of deaths [1].

Because of this there were quite a number of peace/anti-war demonstrations at the time of President Reagan’s visit.  Our present Uachtarán, Michael D. Higgins, now, ironically, the Supreme Commander of our Defence Forces, was among the demonstrators, as were prominent politicians and churchmen, bishops and priests. These demonstrations were organised by a wide group promoting peace, so wide that the party-political element within them was not very prominent at all.

Even though I had just returned from a role promoting peace in the Middle East I knew that I would not have been permitted to go out on the streets promoting peace in my home country.  This, to me, appeared hypocritical and nonsensical, and was a factor in my decision to leave the Army a few short years later.

I knew many ordinary citizens who did demonstrate at that time, and all that I knew were sincere in their views in respect of peace in the world.  I myself, had I been allowed demonstrate, would have done so with the status of a neutral Irish state being a force for good in the world foremost in my mind, just as I had when on peacekeeping duties in the Middle East.

There may have been some so-called subversives milking the demonstrations for political ends (there probably were) but they were marginal, and would have been further marginalised had people such as Army and/or Gardaí been permitted to join in the demonstrations.

The very fact that it will probably be seen as absurd that some members of the Army and Gardaí would choose to be part of a peaceful demonstration, with other members stewarding the same demonstration, shows the awesome power of the group-think of the Pillars.

[1]. The entire World now identifies the term 9-11 with the attack on the World Trade Centre (the Twin Towers) in New York.  It is worth remembering that for the Chilean people, 9-11 was the date (11 September 1973) that the USA supported the overthrow of the democratically elected Government of Salvador Allende and installed the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet whose Government imposed an unaccountable, cruel and despotic fascist regime which lasted until 1990.

Before I finish this Sub-Chapter I’d like you to ponder on the real interests of the military industrial complex, which is not a new phenomenon in the world!  It has been there since the dawn of time and in all cultures but rapidly accelerated during the latter half of the 19^th Century.

There have always been powerful people willing to send poorer people to their deaths by starting wars to increase wealth and protect their interests.

Wars were (and still are) waged by colonial countries to increase the wealth and influence of smaller numbers of elite individuals within them and maintain unfair trading practices, exploitation, or ethnically cleanse those who they deem to be a threat to them.

Other wars, of course, are reactive.  Such wars are liberation wars waged by people who have been exploited, displaced, evicted, sometimes starved, and who have no hope of freedom other than to engage in activities that hurt the people that are hurting them.

There are also many examples of less organised wars, such as slaves [1] rising up in violence to overthrow cruel and harsh overlords.  This has been happening as long as history has been written.

But whether or not war is proactive or reactive it always involves terror, fear, horror, long term tragedy, pain and trauma for all directly affected – and weapons industries profit hugely.

The people who wage war have managed to come up with the term war crime. Continuous use of this term plants the thought in our heads that war itself is not a crime. It is used so that ordinary people think that war is a kind of gentlemanly affair where there is one way of killing people that is okay, or acceptable, and another way that is not – i.e. that is criminal.

As I mentioned in a previous post, a sad reality of the world is that if you are small you’ll be bullied, economically and politically, unless you toe the line.  The voracious corporate world demands that politicians succumb to their agenda and if they don’t they’ll punish them severely [2].

But this is normal, not criminal!

[1]. In all European countries of the 1700’s and before, very wealthy land-owners virtually owned their workers.  They thought themselves superior to the workers – and while they did not exactly buy and sell them like slaves, it was not too far removed from that.  The more benign ones took care of their tenants but the tenants did not have any rights as such.  It was a fairly short hop from there to slavery.

[2]. I mentioned the recent recession in a previous post also – which is an example of such economic and political punishment.

Discussing legitimatised violence in society leads me to the phenomenon that we call terrorism, which is rarely out of the news.  Throughout my life it has been ever present. 

As most of you know, the word terrorism is used to describe the violence that is visited upon society, (often, though not exclusively, against civilians), and usually randomly and unexpectedly to effect maximum casualties, by illegal paramilitary groups.

Once again, because of my training as a solider, I find it very revealing that the term terrorism is used to describe such behaviour, and that such a term has become derogatory.

After all, the legally formed army that wins what is called a just war is the army whose soldiers ruthlessly terrorise the other army into submission until they surrender.  There is nothing gentlemanly about conducting war of any kind – it is indeed the purest form, and best example of terrorism.

And in virtually every war in history large numbers of non-combatant civilians, once again, including children, were terrorised by armies fighting so-called just wars, i.e. rendered homeless, injured/maimed, ethnically cleansed and killed.  In fact, one would be hard pressed to identify a war where they weren’t.

For example, hundreds of thousands of people were burned to death by the Allies who were always, and still are, portrayed to us as the unblemished, blame-free heroes of World War Two, as they did a really good job terrorising Germany and Japan into submission. Why don’t we call them terrorists? And as I mentioned elsewhere during our own 1916 Rising more civilians than combatants were killed. I have never heard the men who fought in 1916 referred to as terrorists.

As I said in the post on similarities and differences, it was nothing personal, just the business of war.

So I propose that the almost exclusive use of the word terrorist to describe the person who kills illegally for a political cause is surely proof of the old saying that the first casualty in war is truth.

Because the truth is that all soldiers in war should be ruthless terrorists; and if they don’t strike terror into the hearts of the enemy – they aren’t good soldiers!

Whether it is poor peasants in France in the 1780’s, poor Catholics in Northern Ireland in the 1960’s, or, in modern day, Rohinga Muslims in Myanmar or Palestinians in Israel, autocratic leadership that allows one side to exploit the other leaves a democratic vacuum that is filled with people who resort to the same violence that has been perpetrated against them to get their needs met – but using methods not approved by the Pillars.

Non-state terrorism is almost always the result of years if not centuries of lack of freedom, perpetuation of injustice, discrimination (and sometimes cruelty, hunger and even famine), usually so severe in nature that people are suffering pain that they cannot endure any longer.

Now this discourse on Interesting Parallels is very relevant if you are a worker tasked with protecting children, whether or not you have leadership ambitions.

The reason that it is relevant is because the parallels highlight the vital importance of being aware of 1): the whole truth in a democracy, and 2): the danger of accepting half-truths, lies, and deceptions dressed up as fact, and their influence on decisions made by the Pillars.

Linking child protection and democracy – and because this website is primarily about protecting children who may follow older members of their families into a life of crime – I believe that the prevalence (or otherwise) of crime and illegal terrorism is a test of good enough democracy.

Observing the world around us, in countries where you have good enough, accountable, democracy, with accompanying transparent fairness and justice, and a manageable gap between rich and poor, you have low crime rates, low imprisonment rates, and virtually no illegal terrorism.

Such countries are not, of course, perfect. But their commitment to and tradition of democracy optimises the conditions for adherence to rigorous and transparent human rights legislation, respect for minorities and high regard for women’s rights. (In respect of the amount of violence in our world, I think that it’s good for humanity that machismo appears to be on the decline.  Most of the harm that is done to our world is driven by machismo).

In such a country, a critical mass (or perhaps more than a critical mass, perhaps the majority) of people have a sense of inclusion and feel that their concerns will be addressed. Most believe that if unscrupulous people in their society are corrupt, their behaviour won’t be tolerated by those in whom they have vested authority to do something about it, i.e. those who they have voted in to govern.  (Govern means regulate – people seem to have forgotten that)! This is true even if they are part of a minority that might, in some countries, suffer from discrimination.

On the other hand, if we observe our elected representatives (and the state authorities – i.e. the Pillars) doing nothing about corruption, unfairness and perceived injustice, and paying only lip-service to the rights of minorities, we lose faith in our ability – at the ballot box – to be influential enough to change what we are not happy with.

When people become alienated from mainstream society and/or those who make up the rules that the majority of people live by (and legitimise general behaviour) they may legitimise behaviour themselves, i.e. take the law into their own hands.

In this, almost all of our behaviours are legitimised by either the law of the land or the most people think that it is ok principle.  For example once upon a time it was the law of the land, and most people thought that it was ok, to have slaves.  Owning other humans, buying them, selling them, punishing them severely or even killing them, and/or working them to death were legitimate acts.

Many young men who end up in addiction, criminality and gangs grow up in families that suffer a lot of pain.  Mostly, this is emotional pain experienced when growing up in a family with the characteristics that I described in the Sub-Chapter on the Focus Group, and that I will describe again in the Chapter on Trauma and Related Topics. 

Combined with the suffering there has been the exclusion from decision making, and a felt sense of injustice and alienation over, perhaps, many generations.

All this suffering and alienation notwithstanding, in the eyes of the Pillars, people who go to prison are either patronised/talked down to in a condescending way, or else condemned by all right thinking people, portrayed as evil, malicious, deceitful, dishonest, violent, (and often nothing else), often ridiculed as stupid and unintelligent, and referred to in derogatory terms designed to perpetuate the shallow thinking that characterises most debate and discussion on crime anywhere. (As I already described).

The young man who is expelled from, or drops out of school, gets involved in drugs, joins a gang etc. and goes on a crime spree gets his legitimacy from his peers who are doing the same thing – as well as powerful messages from many young people who grow up in families within the Focus Group, a combination of no one cares about us and most people think that it is ok, thinking which drives their behavioural norms.

The double-speak of the Pillars (and I’d say here, in particular, the media) when it comes to criminality and terrorism vs. the state sponsored military/industrial complex, and the glaring evidence of the utter unfairness of the establishment, and the in-our-faces privileged position of the moneyed classes is like a long running background noise (analogous to something like tinnitus) that constantly irritates and fosters anger and disaffection.

When all this is combined with the probable experience of trauma, poverty, anger, perhaps despair, and lack of connection to the norms of society it is a potent mix indeed.

I have included this Sub-Chapter entitled Interesting Parallels firstly to raise awareness of the double-speak of the establishment (most of which, it must be admitted, is probably unintentional) and secondly to encourage us to think systemically and, in particular, always question everything.

Because there is a link between all the above and how the most vulnerable are treated!