02 March 2016

Reflections from one who is normally apolitical

Dear diary,

I’ve only paid attention to the presidential debates this year because, as I understand it, each political team is vexed by the fact that one of its own players is running for office without the aid of “big money” (also known as THE ESTABLISHMENT). The first of these outsiders is supported by contributions from everyday people; and the other player possesses his own big money.

Can my memory be trusted? I think I’ve heard each and every one of the candidates say, at some point during the debates, that we should not let our country’s military act as “the police of the world.”

Upon hearing this, my first thought was: That’s right; they should protect their own country, not occupy and monitor other countries. But, like I said, this idea was repeated by many (if not all) of the debaters; so I kept experiencing changes of reaction, each time that I heard it.

As a thought experiment, to play the devil’s advocate, at one point I wondered: What if we did indeed attempt to police the world with our military: is there anything attractive about this idea?

Quickly I realized, it’s the word police that ruins the suggestion—for, who wants armed guards enforcing discipline? One would hope that harmony could thrive by some means other than thug-muscle.

Then I thought: Why do countries have militaries anyway? Because each country hates every other country? Because our native tongues are dissimilar? Because our customs are divergent? Because of food shortage, differences in religion, riches, resources?

But whenever you meet a foreign citizen through the social networks online, you always end up admiring that individual: you realize that they’re much like you. Using an automatic translator, you find out that you both enjoy similar movies, classic literature, etc…

I lament the fact that all cultures are melting into one huge boring Internet Society. But the happy side of this sad fact is that we should be able to neutralize the enmities that formerly led to war.

  • Chimpanzees pummel each other, on impulse.
  • Gentlemen engage in scheduled duels.
  • Oversouls exchange ideas, simply.

What is called civilization should be enlightenment. Enlightenment disdains not only inbred pummeling and duels but warfare itself.

Instead of spending umpteen billions of dollars on weapons, what if a country were to invest that amount of money in helping others? It is more blessed to give than to receive. (Acts 20:35) One’s opponent has a nuclear bomb, so one arms oneself with a nuclear bomb? This practice is expensive and dangerous. But helping other countries will actually keep one’s homeland safer, in the long run; because no one would nuke a country that is her friend.

The states of the U.S. are united—they no longer fight each other, because they are all part of one country. What if all the countries would unite and avoid world war, because we are all part of the same globe? United States of America… United Countries of Earth.

But we should rename our planet, so that it’s presentable when the extraterrestrials visit—Earth is too ugly of a word; I suggest Xanadu.


Please accept my apologies for the naivety of this present blog post. It seemed convincing when I was writing it. I conclude that words are tricksters: they seduce their author away from lowly reality.

No comments:


More from Bryan Ray