"turning the other cheek when someone else is oppressed is not Christian behaviour; it is complicity in the oppressor's crimes".
This is what was said by the shooter in the US who tried to charge through security at the Whitehouse Correspondence dinner in Washington. And while I disagree with violence, I am just wondering who doesn't agree with that statement. Because if turning the other cheek to the violence of others is acceptable, it means that no one should do anything about child abuse or sexual abuse, or any other kind of violence. But it opens up a can of worms, doesn't it? Because while those examples are illegal, so too have been some actions of the US government, meaning that they are inflicting illegal violence on people who may not be able to defend themselves.
I have said for a while now that the US is heading toward a civil war, but most people will disagree, because they are imagining civil war to be like it was a hundred and seventy years ago, between the Union and the Confederates. But I don't think that kind of civil war is what would happen, because war has changed. Just like the war in Ukraine and Iran is being largely dominated by drones, and countries are ramping up robotic soldiers in various forms, civil war will take on a new form also.
As I see it, instead of a concerted push by centralised forces, a new US civil war would be far more decentralised, with many groups, as well as "lone guns" performing attacks against those they believe to be the perpetrators. And belief is all that matters, since we are in the post-fact world that has had gasoline poured on it over the last decade of Trump, with "alternate truths" and direct lying still garnering support. Rather than bringing people together, politics is about turning people against each other, with who ever can create the best enemy getting the backing. And the best enemy position is facilitated by wild emotions, a lack of critical thought, and the feeling of being victimised.
The new civil wars are already raging and have been for a while, but they have been constrained to the digital platforms, which have used them as collateral to get more clicks. But inevitably, those same online arguments that shape belief systems and encourage outrage, will spill into the physical world and will encourage people to act. And we are seeing this more and more, where civilians are taking matters into their own hands and acting on what they believe.
While they are likely considered "mad people" to most of us, it is the trend that matters, because just like a fashion trend, it starts to self-propagate, pulling more people into its sphere of influence. It is like that "First Follower" (short and worth the watch) concept where the first person is ridiculed, but once one follower comes along and legitimises, more will join in and pretty soon, there is a movement. And no matter what a person believes, with the internet, there is always someone willing to legitimise it. Even the most heinous and disgusting of beliefs, has groups of supporters on the internet.
So increasingly the position will become that people will act on their beliefs to do something against the perpetrators they see, whether it be governments, industries, corporations, or other citizens. When people are turned against each other for political and financial gain, it can only be expected that violence will result. And because the way this has been done has been to enrich an increasingly small amount of people, it means that simultaneously a growing number are facing increasing uncertainty and hardship, with less and less to lose. The social contracts are broken, the economic stability eroded away, the reasons to turn the other cheek diminishing rapidly.
Governments aren't prepared for a modern civil war, much like traditional battle tactics haven't fared well in Afghanistan or Ukraine, because the form of war had changed. Even now, with a far superior force, the US is facing a loss in Iran. The government response to a decentralised civil war would be increasing oppression through monitoring and application of force, such as what has happened in the US over the last decade or so, and the usage of military and government militia roaming civilian streets.
And ultimately, this approach is going to exacerbate the problems and push more people toward what was the edge domain of crazies and extremists. But, once enough people get pushed, that edge is no longer the edge, it is approaching the norm. That means there will be more extreme people who will increase severity and frequency, which will speed the process up further and add velocity to the movement. Not a single, concerted movement, but a myriad of movements, all with different ideals and targets, all wanting to do what is right in their eyes. And the more they do, the more harm gets done to an increasing number of people, creating a larger base of those who are damaged and oppressed, and are therefore less likely to turn the other cheek to the situations that feel are not right.
If someone you cared about was being attacked, would you want someone to step in and defend them? What if they were being attacked by the people who are charged with defending them, those who make the laws, and police the laws they have made? Should people defer to authority, even when they believe what the authority is doing is morally wrong?
We have seen what happens in the past, haven't we?
The world is in a sorry state of affairs and people are suffering, while politicians create unnecessary violence and volatility, and corporations are hitting record valuations. The economic and political systems are not aligned with improving society and are in fact the antithesis of what humanity needs. With their greed for power and control, they are creating an ecosystem that becomes increasingly volatile and violent, until all social systems collapse - and no one wins.
Turn the other cheek?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
