DiscussMormonism.com

I'm finishing up a great book called The Anatomy of Peace by Emery Reves. It was written in 1945, but still seems pretty relevant. It was highly recommended by Albert Einstein in one of his books, which is how I heard of it.

Anyway, in it Reves discusses why we don't have peace and how we could achieve it. It has given me a lot to think about. It has helped me see things in new ways, as well.

The main obstacle to peace is nationalism. We all are guilty of worshiping the idols of our own country to the detriment of the people of the community of the world.

A good Christian would kill another good Christian if his nation told him to. His allegiance to his nation supersedes that of his religion or anything else. We could say the same for anyone. Pick a feature and you would kill someone like you if they belong to your "enemy" nation.

National sovereignty is the true enemy of peace and freedom. It is what humanity must overcome in order to live together peacefully.

Throughout history we can see that war occurs when two separate bodies of people come into contact and do not have laws governing how they interact. The only way the war/conflict ends is when a larger governmental body encompasses the two groups establishing law and order. That is what ends the anarchy. When there are no laws to govern how nations interact there will always be war.

War is immoral because it is without law. It is a result of anarchy. It infringes on human rights.

Law is how we create peace and freedom. It allows us to live together without war. Laws are enforced. This is justice. This is moral.

A world government is necessary to establish true and lasting peace in the world. The world is too small for us to continue to operate without one.

<3

just me wrote:I'm finishing up a great book called The Anatomy of Peace by Emery Reves. It was written in 1945, but still seems pretty relevant. It was highly recommended by Albert Einstein in one of his books, which is how I heard of it.

Anyway, in it Reves discusses why we don't have peace and how we could achieve it. It has given me a lot to think about. It has helped me see things in new ways, as well.

The main obstacle to peace is nationalism. We all are guilty of worshiping the idols of our own country to the detriment of the people of the community of the world.

A good Christian would kill another good Christian if his nation told him to. His allegiance to his nation supersedes that of his religion or anything else. We could say the same for anyone. Pick a feature and you would kill someone like you if they belong to your "enemy" nation.

National sovereignty is the true enemy of peace and freedom. It is what humanity must overcome in order to live together peacefully.

Throughout history we can see that war occurs when two separate bodies of people come into contact and do not have laws governing how they interact. The only way the war/conflict ends is when a larger governmental body encompasses the two groups establishing law and order. That is what ends the anarchy. When there are no laws to govern how nations interact there will always be war.

War is immoral because it is without law. It is a result of anarchy. It infringes on human rights.

Law is how we create peace and freedom. It allows us to live together without war. Laws are enforced. This is justice. This is moral.

A world government is necessary to establish true and lasting peace in the world. The world is too small for us to continue to operate without one.

<3

Great stuff, just me!

I haven't read the book you're quoting, but I have read others that put forth that idea. Nationalism = Tribalism. The idea that we all started out as small tribes of hunter/ gathers in a world where resources were scarce. A group had to protect it's domain or risk starvation (all competing tribes must be driven off to survive). It happens with wolf packs, as well (genetic?).

It's something that might be ingrained into the human psyche (think of street gangs competing over "turf" that isn't really theirs to start with).

I hope we can overcome that mentality.

Quasimodo wrote:
Great stuff, just me!

I haven't read the book you're quoting, but I have read others that put forth that idea. Nationalism = Tribalism. The idea that we all started out as small tribes of hunter/ gathers in a world where resources were scarce. A group had to protect it's domain or risk starvation (all competing tribes must be driven off to survive). It happens with wolf packs, as well (genetic?).

It's something that might be ingrained into the human psyche (think of street gangs competing over "turf" that isn't really theirs to start with).

I hope we can overcome that mentality.

Thanks, Quasi. It certainly isn't an idea unique to the book I mentioned. I actually even found a World Government of World Citizens has already been started. information can be found here: http://www.worldservice.org/index.html?s=1

I think that we can see purpose in how humans have evolved. It seems that in the mid Twentieth century we came to a point where we could either annihilate humanity or embrace all of humanity. We have been sitting on the fence ever since! We are so stubborn! Holding on to the past will end us, I believe. The only way to save ourselves is to move forward...create a world tribe. Embrace humanity in all its varied splendor. Recognize that we are all equal citizens of the planet.

People change pretty easily when they have to. Don't you think? We may scream and yell and fight it, but once a world flag is flying we would all be cheering. Especially since we would no longer have war to fear.

just me wrote:I'm finishing up a great book called The Anatomy of Peace by Emery Reves. It was written in 1945, but still seems pretty relevant. It was highly recommended by Albert Einstein in one of his books, which is how I heard of it.

Anyway, in it Reves discusses why we don't have peace and how we could achieve it. It has given me a lot to think about. It has helped me see things in new ways, as well.

The main obstacle to peace is nationalism. We all are guilty of worshiping the idols of our own country to the detriment of the people of the community of the world.

In 1945 we had three dominant ideologies: communism, fascism and capitalism. Fascism was in decline because at the time that that book was being written, national socialism and facsism were losing the war. The main obstacle to peace is not nationalism but ideologies. When the soviet union fell, Fukeyama wrote a book about the end of history and the victory of liberal democracy. He saw a new age of peace because the cold war was over. He was wrong. And during the cold war, we had two dominant ideologies: capitalism and communism. We also had democratic socialism in western europe. But this ideology allied itself with the west. And throughout the cold war these two dominant ideologies clashed on the world stage in various parts of the world for influence. And america was drawn into vietnam because of it as it was in korea. And covertly in latin america and in afghanistan under soviet influence with US support for the group that became known as the taliban.

It has been ideological. And it doesn't seem to be different now.

just me wrote:
A world government is necessary to establish true and lasting peace in the world. The world is too small for us to continue to operate without one.

<3

With the fall of the soviet union, the USA tried to have a world government based on the free market taking the lead. We had the world bank and the IMF taking the lead to support the free market in countries where it did not exist. Some claimed that this was an attempt to have an one world government based on a neoconserative agenda throughout the world. Thus, we had the supremacy of the market. Take a look at the term Washington Consensus. It seems that the world was following that blueprint, especially in america.

And as we can see this did not create any peace.

Capitalism can not create peace because it is violent by nature.

why me wrote:

just me wrote:
A world government is necessary to establish true and lasting peace in the world. The world is too small for us to continue to operate without one.

<3

With the fall of the soviet union, the USA tried to have a world government based on the free market taking the lead.

Uh, no they didn't. They didn't attempt an actual world government.

For example...the Washington Consensus you pointed me to still works on a nationalistic basis and mindset. That is why it failed. It lacked a world government, a world police force, a world judicial system. It lacked a world currency. To name a few problems with the policy...

just me wrote:Thanks, Quasi. It certainly isn't an idea unique to the book I mentioned. I actually even found a World Government of World Citizens has already been started. information can be found here: http://www.worldservice.org/index.html?s=1

I think that we can see purpose in how humans have evolved. It seems that in the mid Twentieth century we came to a point where we could either annihilate humanity or embrace all of humanity. We have been sitting on the fence ever since! We are so stubborn! Holding on to the past will end us, I believe. The only way to save ourselves is to move forward...create a world tribe. Embrace humanity in all its varied splendor. Recognize that we are all equal citizens of the planet.

People change pretty easily when they have to. Don't you think? We may scream and yell and fight it, but once a world flag is flying we would all be cheering. Especially since we would no longer have war to fear.

I think things are improving. It's easy to get disheartened with all the events going on, but some of them are good (Arab Spring?). The great cold war battle between communism and capitalism seems to have gone by the wayside. Now it's just small religious spats with the occasional, nasty terrorist attack.

I think that the rapid spread of information (internet) has change the game in a big way. It's allowing us to become a more homogeneous world. Things are looking up.

Quasimodo wrote:

just me wrote:Thanks, Quasi. It certainly isn't an idea unique to the book I mentioned. I actually even found a World Government of World Citizens has already been started. information can be found here: http://www.worldservice.org/index.html?s=1

I think that we can see purpose in how humans have evolved. It seems that in the mid Twentieth century we came to a point where we could either annihilate humanity or embrace all of humanity. We have been sitting on the fence ever since! We are so stubborn! Holding on to the past will end us, I believe. The only way to save ourselves is to move forward...create a world tribe. Embrace humanity in all its varied splendor. Recognize that we are all equal citizens of the planet.

People change pretty easily when they have to. Don't you think? We may scream and yell and fight it, but once a world flag is flying we would all be cheering. Especially since we would no longer have war to fear.

I think things are improving. It's easy to get disheartened with all the events going on, but some of them are good (Arab Spring?). The great cold war battle between communism and capitalism seems to have gone by the wayside. Now it's just small religious spats with the occasional, nasty terrorist attack.

I think that the rapid spread of information (internet) has change the game in a big way. It's allowing us to become a more homogeneous world. Things are looking up.

Yes, things are looking up. However, when I learn that my global sisters in Somalia are dealing with a rape epidemic on top of famine I feel like we have a long, long way to go. Ya know?

why me wrote:
In 1945 we had three dominant ideologies: communism, fascism and capitalism. Fascism was in decline because at the time that that book was being written, national socialism and facsism were losing the war. The main obstacle to peace is not nationalism but ideologies. When the soviet union fell, Fukeyama wrote a book about the end of history and the victory of liberal democracy. He saw a new age of peace because the cold war was over. He was wrong. And during the cold war, we had two dominant ideologies: capitalism and communism. We also had democratic socialism in western europe. But this ideology allied itself with the west. And throughout the cold war these two dominant ideologies clashed on the world stage in various parts of the world for influence. And america was drawn into vietnam because of it as it was in korea. And covertly in latin america and in afghanistan under soviet influence with US support for the group that became known as the taliban.

It has been ideological. And it doesn't seem to be different now.

If you think it through, why me, ideology is only an excuse for tribalism. It's still an "us against them" way of thinking. The Vietnam war started because the U.S. refused promised help in getting France out of Indochina. Ho Chi Minh was an ally of the U.S. against Japan. He only turned to the Soviets when America refused to help.

It was about spheres of influence (Russian and American). Tribal boundaries.

Another good example of tribalism:

just me wrote:
Yes, things are looking up. However, when I learn that my global sisters in Somalia are dealing with a rape epidemic on top of famine I feel like we have a long, long way to go. Ya know?

I hear ya!