WECAN

The Women's Empowerment Cancer Advocacy Network (WECAN) Recently held a summit (September, 2014) in the African country of Tanzania.  This vital work certainly contributes positively towards social justice and world peace.  This video provides some insight into the work of this important organization.

The Stupidity Principle

It is readily apparent that many parts of the human world are in the midst of ethnic, political and economic turmoil.  The chaos that such turmoil engenders results in violent aggression, terrorism and war.  I attribute this behavior to what I refer to as the Stupidity Principle.  The essential feature of this principle inexorably leads to behavior that runs counter to the present and future viability of the species.

The stupidity principle can be ascribed to the following attributes –

• Uncompromising adulation for the victors of war and not its needless victims.
• Sanctification of machines of cold steel and massive explosive power capable of unleashing destructive energy of immense proportions resulting in mayhem and death.   This apparent love of the weapons of war seems oblivious to the financial burden that they impose upon the human community and the cost in lives and ultimately civilization that result in their use.
• Creation of tributaries of blood and needless sacrifice and mounds of shattered limbs and lifeless corpses in the hollow name of religion or state.
• Obsessive allegiance to wealth, fame and fortune while the plight of the nameless armies of the poor and dispossessed remains unattended.
• Reckless destruction of the natural environment for the purpose of the endless and often mindless pursuit of material progress and the maintenance of lives of convenience and comfort.  The unsustainable “plenty” so derived may well lead to a dismal future for humanity’s children marooned upon a poisoned planet.
• Libertarian “true” belief in the absolute supremacy of the individual and the mindless pursuit of self-interest regardless of the real cost to the human community.  Adherence to such a belief system is nothing but an insipid justification for the inequitable distribution of wealth and the squandering of public resources for private gain.
• Prejudice in all its forms whether it be based upon religion, political belief, racial or ethnic differences or sexual orientation – it is the uncompromising hatred that bigotry often engenders that is the root cause for so much suffering and violent aggression.

The human community needs to actively divest itself of such a principle if we hope to leave a peaceful and viable world for our children.  There is no time like the present.

What is the Nature of Fundamentalism

A fundamental aspect of living is the undeniable reality of individual mortality and the temporary nature of individual existence.  This aspect of existence necessarily invokes fear and trepidation within the self-conscious human brain.  The individual is faced with a number of alternatives when faced with this inherent truth.  It can be embraced as being an essential aspect of existence or an attempt can be made either to negate its reality or soften its significance through the creation of alternative belief systems.

These alternative belief systems fall into a number of categories –

Primal Superstition – a state of mind that was particularly prevalent in early human societies when there was little scientific understanding of the human and natural worlds and everything seemed mysterious and dangerous.  As a result, equally mysterious forces were invoked to explain what seemed terrifying and uncontrollable.

Religion - Within the fabric of most world religions there is a strong belief in a god(s) that is perpetually interested and involved in our own welfare in a world that is so devoid of any real evidence of divine intervention.  A corollary belief that is often invoked is the existence of an afterlife – where the “soul” lives eternally once freed of the limitations of the body.  

The god concept came into being when humans thought that they were the universe and that the universe was inexplicably hostile.  It is an extraordinary testimonial to the human imagination, given the current understanding of the immensity of the cosmos, that there still persists the idea of a personal savior - a supernatural being that can be called upon to help to meet our worldly needs or deliver us from suffering; a savior that is intimately aware of all our thoughts and actions, needs and desires; a savior that is so caring and so powerful, yet somehow strangely unable to make the world a less bloody, less violent and a less treacherous place.

What makes religious belief especially poignant is the fact that so many have died throughout history as a direct result of differing beliefs about god.  To this day, god is invoked by all sides in military conflicts.  It seems that those who differ strongly enough in beliefs to kill each other are looked upon with equal favor by the creator.  This makes absolutely no sense by any measure of rational and reasoned judgment. 

Religious institutions, like all other human institutions, are readily corrupted by the allure of power.  The powerful must dominate and coerce those beneath them in order to sustain their privileged positions.  Throughout history, the so-called “houses of god” have gone down this road.  It is an inescapable aspect of the human condition.  The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the many conflicts in Europe between differing Christian sects following the Protestant Reformation are but a few examples of the powerful influence and deleterious effects of religious institutions and beliefs.  Would the Jews have ever suffered the horrendous fate they endured at the hands of the German Fascists; would the crazed ideas of Adolph Hitler have ever been listened to or followed, if there hadn’t been an extreme religious hatred against the Jews in the first place? 

Gods come in all forms: the human-like gods of the Greeks and Romans, the animal-like gods of the Hindus and Egyptians, the omnipotent god of the Jews and Christians.  Many of these gods have come to earth in wholly human form.  According to the various mythologies, these gods are often destroyers as much as creators.  They are gods of unspeakable wrath as well as boundless love.

A belief in god has not substantially advanced human progress but rather has helped to retard its development.  Human civilizations have continued to go through the same cycle of birth, development, ascendancy, decline and dissolution leaving mountains of dead and incredible destruction in the wake of history, regardless of the gods they sacrificed or prayed to.  This, in itself, suggests that god is either a fabrication or a very ineffectual reality.

It is my considered opinion that the practice of religion removes the responsibility for the state of the world from where it truly belongs - on the shoulders of humans.  It is the human species that has made this world what it is, and it is humanity that must make it right.  Religion often frees its practitioners from personal moral responsibility.  Furthermore, extreme religious belief is often tied intimately to jingoistic patriotism.  This was readily seen in both the Vietnam and Iraq Wars where Christian Fundamentalists were strongly in support of waging war and never displayed any qualms when millions of innocent people were slaughtered in these engagements.  This is quite ironic since it is this same extremist faction that claims to occupy the moral high ground, holding all life as sacred and that looks on non-believers with such contempt and disdain.  Anyone with even a miniscule understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ would readily conclude that the one they claim to be their master would be utterly appalled at the actions and behavior done in his name.

Great teachers such as Christ, Muhammad, Buddha and the prophets of the Old Testament are paid mostly lip service by the vast and powerful institutions that have arisen out of their original teachings.  What these advanced thinkers sought to instill in the human heart: love, compassion, understanding and generosity of spirit, has been more or less ignored by those in power, who call out the names of their gods with such purported reverence.  Though millions upon millions of humans visit their houses of worship regularly, they still live their lives based on the tenets of self-aggrandizement and are more than happy to accept the gross inequities and injustice embodied in the status quo, especially since it is in their interest to do so.

Religion exploits the intrinsic fear of death in the minds of its followers, and offers up a cathartic menu of empty promises, including life eternal, heavenly rewards for their obeisance and detailed rules and guidelines regarding acceptable human behavior. Life is not possible without death and to suggest that humans are especially deserving of an afterlife that stretches into eternity establishes a particular set of expectations that are not amenable to verification.  A belief in the existence of such an extraordinary reality that can never be proven does not diminish the reality that we are but another species on a biologically diverse planet, and our ascendancy can be readily explained by well-established principles of biology and evolution.

Religious Fundamentalism can be found in all of the world religions including, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism.  It is an extreme form of religious belief in which the followers passionately believe that they embrace immutable truths and principles upon which not only their personal salvation depends, but also the fate of the human kind.

As a consequence of this kind of irrational and highly charged thinking, intolerance of human behavior outside of the particular belief system comes to represent normative behavior.  Those individuals within groups based upon fundamentalist principles necessarily adopt conformist attitudes and lifestyles and adhere to well-delineated sanctioned behaviors.  Within this myopic worldview there lies the concept of a people chosen specifically by god to embody his teachings.  This concept is either implied or explicitly stated.

It is not unusual and often quite likely that ingrained thought patterns that embrace fundamental religious ideology lead to aggression and violence towards those who hold differing beliefs – such individuals are invariably seen as a threat to the existence of the constricted universe in which true believers reside.  This kind of hatred has its origin in fear. 

The data that continuously streams into consciousness from the external environment informs the mind that the universe is chaotic; that life is, by its nature, ephemeral; that change is ever-present and can often be abrupt and unexpected.  By its nature, fundamentalist belief systems impose a constraint upon the acceptance of this reality and, therefore, demand conformity.  Survival, thereby, becomes equated with belief and all who do not accept the underlying principles are feared for their existence suggests that the universe may, in fact, operate on different principles.

Politics, Race and Ethnicity - As a way of thinking, fundamentalism does not reside only within the domain of religion; it can also be found in the arena of politics, race, ethnicity and so-called, “intentional communities.”

Fundamentalists can be found fanatically embracing secular ideologies such as communism, democracy, socialism and libertarianism.  Although there are many individuals who identify themselves with these various political philosophies, fundamentalists display an obsessive, extreme and blind adherence to the philosophy they espouse at the expense of reason. 

Fascism, as an example, is a special case on account of the fact that its underlying philosophy embraces racial or ethnic superiority and by its very nature is predisposed to radical fundamentalism.

Regardless of the nature of the belief or system of beliefs, fundamentalism is extremist in nature and the fundamentalist mindset cannot accept compromise or ever take into account the legitimacy of opposing points of view.  From this self-righteous perspective, those who believe otherwise can and often regarded as inherently dangerous.  In this way, wars of aggression are readily justified and sanctioned.

What are Humanity’s Future Prospects

Let me be quite blunt here – not all the data is in, but it doesn’t appear too promising.  It is now the twenty-first century.  The world is crowded with humans with apparently no letup in sight; this trend does not take into account the possibility of a massive and precipitous decrease in the size of the human population due in part or entirely to the inevitable environmental impact of human activity – not that unlikely a scenario. 

However, let us say for argument sake that the human population continues to expand without any genuine regard for accepting the natural consequences for human activity.  Honestly, living in the present in ways that will help ensure a viable existence for future generations does not seem to reside in the purview of modern human behavior. 

Given the ravenous appetites of humans and the seemingly inexhaustible collective need for material acquisitions, what kind of human world will the future entail?  What will the climate look like?  What will be the state of the natural resources upon which human life depends?  What will be the living conditions and the general quality of life for the vast majority of the members of this remarkable species?  What will be the prospects for establishing a human environment where peace would thrive?

In regards to the climate, this question is not difficult to answer.  With the ever-escalating rise in the levels of greenhouse gases in the environment despite all the science that has established a clear and unambiguous relationship between this increase and the deleterious impact on the environment, we can expect:

·         Increasing average ambient temperature worldwide leading to increased desertification, that will lead to population shifts on a massive scale – some areas will be become virtually uninhabitable for human populations.

·         Extreme droughts in certain parts of the world and extreme weather conditions in others with more violent storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

·         Increased releases of dangerous and toxic methane gas, also a greenhouse gas, as a result of the melting of permafrost in the northern climes as the temperature increases.  This effect produces a so-called “feedback loop” as the increased emission of methane raises surface temperature causing a further release of methane and on and on.

·         Accelerated melting of land-based ice leading to an inexorable rise in sea level that over time will have a devastating impact upon those populations living on the world’s coastal areas.   As land ice melts, it reduces the reflective properties of snow and ice (referred to as albedo) thereby increasing warming and further accelerating the melting process.  This is yet another example of a feedback mechanism.  Such dramatic changes will necessarily lead to displacement of large numbers of people that will inevitably lead to social unrest and war on a massive scale.

A thorough scientific analysis of the full impact of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on global weather conditions requires complex algorithms to account for all the variables involved and supercomputers to run the data.  Although this remains a work in progress, the results of this approach have already shown itself to be a good predictive tool. 

The examples cited above merely touch upon some of the most important aspects of the impact of climate change on human populations.  This is by no means an exaggerated accounting.  In spite of the massive amounts of climate data that have confirmed these trends, governments throughout the world – all too ready to accommodate corporate interests – are either proposing tepid measures to corral and decrease the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels or are doing absolutely nothing to avoid future disaster.  If left unchecked, the atmosphere will become so overburdened with greenhouse gases that no solution will be possible no matter how much effort and resources are thrown at the problem.

Regarding the access of humans to the resources that are necessary to sustain human life such as adequate food, safe drinking water, appropriate housing, affordable health care, meaningful employment and a good education, there is reason to believe that on account of the extreme and ever-increasing inequity in regards to income and wealth, more and more individuals will slip into an economic strata typified by poverty, desperation and hopelessness.  Furthermore, as the human population on planet earth continues to grow this will necessarily place a greater burden on finite and shrinking resources.

The economic model that much of the world has come to regard as the bedrock of human advancement, presupposes that progress is equated to and dependent upon the relentless production, expansion and market share of products.  The manufacture of these products depends upon finite resources, some of which are rapidly becoming exhausted. 

This wholly commercial outlook of life has led to its inevitable conclusion – everything is for sale.  Consequently, large numbers of people throughout the world are unnecessarily dying of starvation, have no access to safe drinking water, health care and are made homeless because they lack the economic resources to afford these “commodities.”  The net impact of this fundamental aspect of contemporary economic life is the unmistakable reality that longevity is directly related to wealth – that the very small percentage of the world population that have accumulated abundant wealth are outliving everyone else.  The level of individual consumption that is required to maintain the desired quality of existence in modern terms is essentially unsustainable in the long term.  For these reasons, it is a model that is bound to fail and ultimately fail catastrophically.

Furthermore, the ever- increasing population pressure upon the planet’s finite resources is placing a significant strain upon the availability of the necessary requirements for living.  Not only are greenhouse gases being introduced to the earth’s atmosphere at alarming levels as discussed earlier, but a host of other poisons are entering the air and water supply.  These poisons are by-products of commercial production and their ultimate impact upon the biosphere is impossible to measure.

These issues are not being adequately addressed on account of the fact that corporate interests are thoroughly enmeshed within the political systems of most world governments.  Although the current economic infrastructure that predominates the vast majority of national economies is being questioned from many different sectors it is not being effectively challenged.  For these reasons, real change is highly unlikely.

Extrapolating the current economic trends into the near future and examining the projections being made by climatologists from around the world in regard to the climatic conditions, the picture that is forming is not a pleasant one.

Given the growing inequality of wealth between the few that seem to possess a staggeringly large portion of the economic pie and the paucity of wealth possessed by the vast majority of the world’s population, it is patently obvious that societies around the globe will be comprised of two tiers in which the wealthy few will live abundant and lavish lifestyles within fortified and gated communities with everyone else struggling with and competing for shrinking resources – these conditions already exist in many parts of the world and the situation will grow increasingly bleak and more hopelessly out of balance.

Couple these conditions with the accelerated global impact of climate change, as discussed earlier and you have a world in which the human species is relentlessly besieged by forces that will rent and tear at human communities everywhere.  A number of somber scenarios come to mind in this regard –

·         As the sea levels rise due to the accelerated melting of land-based ice, human communities living by the sea at what was once sea-level will be forced to move inland on a massive scale.  This kind of chaotic and forced migration will bring with it opposition by those who already live safely inland and would suddenly find themselves at risk – this kind of opposition is so bound up with survival that wars of aggression would necessarily follow.

·         The sea will grow more and more acidic as the overburden of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide.  This already is having a deleterious impact on coral populations and the health of marine phytoplankton – small plants that are an essential ingredient in the food chain.  The increasing acidity of world’s oceans together with overfishing that is a direct consequence of human population pressure, will inexorably lead to the rapid diminishment of life in the sea; this process has been referred to as devolution.  The implications of this eventuality on the human species - especially in regards to the supply of protein in the diet - lies beyond comprehension; for, it entails starvation at unprecedented levels.

·         Yet another impact on the oceans as a result of the increased temperature of the oceans is the possible disruption of the deep water thermohaline circulation (THC) that is responsible for the transfer of enormous amounts of heat throughout the planet.  Such a disruption would have major consequences for the global climate.

·         Havoc caused by the unprecedented and wholly unpredictable onslaught of severe and prolonged extreme storms and weather conditions will place a heavy and relentless burden on human populations and the economic infrastructure of human communities everywhere.

·         Members of the affluent class would remain insulated from these dramatic and disruptive changes for a time; however, as national economies and ultimately the global economy begin to feel the full impact of the environment devastation, no one would remain immune to the deleterious consequences of unsustainable human activity.

·         Ultimately, the intricate and interdependent systems that are required to maintain the highly technical and mechanized social order of modern life would collapse under the sheer weight of the global crisis and human societies would necessarily need to adjust to a far more primitive existence.  As a consequence, human populations would shrink over time as the human world is overwhelmed by war, wide-scale famine, severe deprivation and disease. 

Finally, the cumulative psychological damage of these catastrophic events would necessarily have a negative impact on individual and group behavior adding to the increasingly chaotic nature of existence.

This is not a terribly sanguine look at the future.  It does in my judgment, however, represent a reasonable projection of the consequences of current human activity on planet earth if nothing is done to significantly address the underlying issues that demand our full and unmitigated attention.

In answer to the question, “Is the Species Smart Enough?” in regards to insuring a viable future for the human kind, it seems that my answer is leaning towards the negative with the open possibility that this analysis can be readily updated to a more positive conclusion provided that meaningful reform in human behavior becomes evident.  

What Are the Prospects for a More Peaceful World

Despite thousands of years of civilization during which time great strides have been made in the advancement of knowledge and the accumulation of data regarding the real workings of the natural world, the human species remains plagued by violence and war.  Although science has gradually and ineluctably eroded away at ignorance and successfully undermined superstition and prejudice, there still remains a tendency for groups, tribes and nations to view “outsiders” with suspicion, distrust and fear.  It is fear that has the capacity to drive forward irrational conclusions and ultimately violent behavior.  It is fear that closes the mind and hinders the possibility for rational discourse between those who are in conflict.   It is fear that nurtures hatred and propels the “darker” emotions within the human spirit.  There is abundant evidence of this reality operating within the context of human affairs.

There are many armed conflicts raging all over the planet in the beginning of the twenty-first century.  The war in Iraq has ended with the standing down of American forces of occupation; although sectarian violence and civil strife continue to plague the Iraqi people and the infrastructure of the country is still not sufficiently rebuilt to allow for reliable electric power, clean water, sanitation or public health. The War in Afghanistan continues, but the resolve on behalf of the American people to continue fighting is waning.

Human conflict continues in large areas of the world including India and Pakistan, Columbia, the Sudan and between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  In addition to these, there has been renewed and unsettling violence in Egypt following a resurgence of the repressive action of the military.  This is particularly disheartening given the initial gains made by the movement that was fondly described as the “Arab Spring.” 

In addition, a civil war rages in Syria where the government felt so threatened and vulnerable that is resorted to the use of chemical weapons in order to derail the progress being made by the armed resistance.   This revelation was met by revulsion on the part of many members of the world’s global population.  The belligerent response of the developed countries of the West is of particular interest in light of the fact that these same sovereignties, especially the United States and Great Britain, have resorted to the use of such terrorizing weaponry in the pursuit of their own interests in the not so distant past.  The question that continues to haunt me is, “Why is the history of human civilization so impregnated with the reality of war and the constant threat of conflict?”   

The underlying source of the social and economic instabilities that are responsible for the civil conflicts that have plagued many nations in the so-called “third world” can often be traced to the disastrous effects of colonialism.  The following are a few examples of the deleterious consequences of the imposition of foreign rule on the future prospects of an occupied country.

The Nobel Peace Prize recipient Wangari Mathaai described her personal experiences growing up in Kenya.  She was born when Kenya was ruled by the British.  She watched as the beliefs and traditions of her people gradually died away as a result of the Western idea of progress.  The degradation of her local environment had a profound impact on her sensibilities. 

Throughout the nineteenth century, western missionaries came to Africa followed by explorers, adventurers and fortune seekers in service of the European powers.  Missionaries came to Kenya towards the end of the nineteenth century.  They taught that God did not dwell on Mount Kenya, but in heaven.  The missionaries and the colonial administrators who followed them introduced new methods of exploiting natural resources such as logging, clear-cutting, creating plantations of imported trees, the commercial hunting of wildlife and commercial agriculture.  As a consequence of the implementation of these practices, hallowed landscapes were exploited.  In 1884-1885, Britain and the other major colonialist European powers met in Berlin at the Berlin Conference to draft what came to be known as the “Scramble for Africa.”  This conference formalized plans to achieve its ultimate goal - to lay claim to all of Africa within thirty years.

In Kenya, the British subdivided the country into different areas based upon the populations of different religious denominations who inhabited those regions.  In Maathai’s region, there were Scottish Presbyterians and Italian Catholics.  In the 1910’s, the British government encouraged British citizens to settle in Kenya, especially in the fertile highlands; these settlers received title deeds and the natives were relocated to the Rift Valley.  The British settlers introduced commercial agriculture and grew wheat, maze, coffee and tea.

As a result of colonial exploitation, the following changes in the natural environment took place:

•     Decimation of native plants for the purpose of growing so-called “cash crops” like tobacco

•     Importation of exotic plants for purely commercial purposes; this practice played havoc with the delicate ecological balance

•     Soil erosion as a result of extreme logging practices, especially clear-cutting

•     Imposition of agribusiness methods led to over cultivation and pollution of the soil and local environment with chemicals designed to improve crop production

•     Creation of commercial plantations supporting non-native trees i.e. Pine, Eucalyptus and Black Wattle, a species of Acacia normally found in Australia, for the timber and building industries - this had a profound impact on the natural ecosystem and its capacity to retain rainwater.

The impact of colonial rule on the native population was equally disastrous.  In the highlands, the area where Maathai was born, large British plantations usurped the native agriculture.  Although crops like tobacco brought in sizeable profits for the white settlers, native Kenyans were allowed to raise only pyrethrum as a cash crop.  In addition, the British imposed an income tax to be paid in money effectively transforming the livestock-based economy to a cash-based economy.  This kind of restriction imposed so much hardship; it was akin to slavery.

These practices imposed on the people of Kenya against their will solely for the purpose of exploiting the riches derived from the country’s natural resources, had a destabilizing impact upon the nation’s future.

The nation of Nigeria was, in fact, an artificial construct as a result of colonization by the British.  It was created from the remains of the Niger River Trading Company.  The Europeans helped themselves to vast territorial holdings in Africa as a result of the Treaty of Berlin as described above.

Northern Nigeria was populated by Muslims – the Hausa Fulani ethnic group ruled by emirs.  The people of northern Nigeria were relatively easy to control on account of the hierarchical nature of their social structure. The peoples of southern Nigeria, on the other hand, were more difficult to subjugate – they were fiercely democratic.  In order to subdue them, the British used religion, bribery, the influence of missionaries, and the power of the military.  It was British administration driven by economic considerations that carved out the Nigerian borders.  It was through the clever application of divide and conquer that the colonialists used the differences between the Hausa-Fulani in the north, the Yoruba peoples in the west and the Ibo in the east to create sharp political and social divisions within the country while busily extracting the economic resources of the region.

When the country won independence from the British in 1960, the bureaucratic and administrative organization of government created by the colonial authority remained in place allowing for future problems.  Oil was discovered in Nigeria in 1958.  For over 30 years oil has provided over 30 billion dollars to the Nigerian economy.  However, this revenue fed corruption and enriched a small and well-connected minority of the nation’s population.  The Ogoni people received no real benefit from their oil-rich land.  Quite to the contrary, they had no reliable electricity, no pipe-born water and they were not the beneficiaries of any significant social or economic projects.  In addition, their language was disappearing and they were effectively pushed into slavery as their natural environment was adversely impacted by irresponsible practices on the part of the oil industry.  The famed Nigerian author and activist, Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed for his attempt to mobilize opposition to the economic and environmental devastation wrought by oil production in his country.  Nigeria remains plagued by problems that had their roots in the practices established and employed by their previous colonial masters.

The examples cited above share numerous aspects in common with many other troubled spots throughout the world.  The excesses of colonialism have effectively outlived the colonial powers such as Great Britain, Portugal and Spain whose empires are no longer extant.  The idea of empire, however, has not subsided; there are many nations who currently aspire to that “ideal” of national greatness.  It is imperative for the future of the species that human societies ultimately embrace the all-inclusive idea of family extending the concept to all of human kind as Desmond Tutu suggests.  Otherwise, humanity will continue to view the world as consisting of irreconcilable enclaves of “us and them.”

On examining the ferocity of warfare, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the human species has not learned very much over its protracted history.  The history of Europe from the Ancient Roman and Greek civilizations to the present, as an example, is replete with carnage that is the inevitable outcome of innumerable wars. 

Within the individual human psyche there exists a constant tension between the force and power of the emotions driven by the passions embodied in territory, tribe and nation and that of reason.  The more reactive emotions stem in large part from the evolution of the species in an environment that was essentially hostile and in which the forces of nature that impacted human experience were not understood and the causes of calamity were attributed to the gods, malevolent spirits or a specific enemy. 

In the beginnings of the human kind, ignorance was prevalent and fear and suspicion dominated and shaped human behavior.  Although the advancement of science and technology has shed light upon many aspects of the human experience that were once shrouded in mystery, the inherent tendency to strike out violently against that which is feared and poorly understood remains to haunt human societies.  What is particularly unique about humanity in the twenty-first century is the inescapable reality that the application of overwhelming force against a perceived enemy is no longer a viable solution especially considering the destructiveness of modern weaponry.

Over the thousands of years of human civilization, great empires have risen and eventually fallen.  The cycle of empire building and dissolution has generally followed the same inexorable path. The beginning stage is represented by the rise of a local community of common origin followed by a gradual accretion of power usually by force. Success at this initial stage leads to an ascendancy to the use of overwhelming force in order to subdue all adversaries.  As power becomes increasingly concentrated within a burgeoning empire, there is a tendency to broaden the sphere of influence.  This expansion ultimately leads to an exhaustion of resources both material and human.  Finally, the empire contracts and ultimately dissolves.  The entire process might take place over a thousand years as exemplified by the Roman Empire or hundreds of years as demonstrated by the British Empire.

In all of human history, cycles of expansion and warfare were tolerable given the low density of human populations on the planet and the relatively benign effects of the primitive weaponry on the global environment.  This model of human behavior where economic, political and social differences and rivalries are settled through violent means is no longer tenable in the modern era. 

The essentially tribal nature of human interactions has evolved over the generations into competing national sovereignties.  The idea that each nation-state is a power unto itself is no longer compatible with the rapidly evolving global character of human endeavor.  The development of technological weaponry, especially nuclear and chemical weapons, has created a situation in which warfare necessarily leads to horrific consequences both locally for the populations involved and globally due to the environmental effects as witnessed in the nuclear attacks against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs and landmines in Cambodia, the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and the use of Depleted Uranium (DU)  hardened ordnance in Iraq.  The daunting issues that face humanity are no longer local but rather global in nature.   The remarkable savagery of the First and Second World Wars of the Twentieth Century awakened the idea of the need for a world organization as a forum for international communication so as to foster dialog between nations and forestall the possibility of future wars of such magnitude.  The first experiment in a world organization as a vehicle for adjudicating international disputes was the League of Nations that was created in the aftermath to World War I.  This, unfortunately, met with limited success and was eventually disbanded.  Subsequently the United Nations was created at the end of World War II.  The United Nations is still extant but remains hostage to the dominance of the special interests of the powerful industrial nations that constitute the Security Council.

The will to empire is still very much with us.  Apparently, no significant lessons have been learned from the horrid mistakes of the past.  The absolute need for true international cooperation as a means to effectively circumvent a catastrophic future that now seems so likely is still not recognized.  Many nations remain fixated on the ferocious competition for dominance and supremacy at the expense of those sovereignties that are weaker and more fragile.  This competition has usually been over the resources required to fuel and sustain national economies.  The need for additional natural resources such as land for expansion of national populations or energy and mineral resources has often been the focus of extreme competition resulting in the colonization of resource-rich poor nations by the more powerful states.  As needed resources such as oil or water become scarce, the competition will, by necessity, grow more fierce and explosive.

This particular mindset has become problematic; the species is in desperate need of a completely new paradigm.  The model must be based, by necessity, on a spirit of cooperation, compassion, generosity and a willingness to reach meaningful compromise to avert disaster.  At that the very core of such a marked change in worldview is the incorporation of a non-violent philosophy in the essential character of human social interaction. 

The chasm that currently exists between the so-called “haves” and “have-nots” both within and between sovereign states is helping to sustain the extreme level of violence that continues to plague humanity.  Fundamental issues of social and economic justice need to be uppermost on the agenda.  Such a focus would require a serious implementation of the role of social responsibility and conscience in the behavior of governments.  The idea of belonging wholly to one nation must be superseded by the idea of being a member of the world community.  This, of course, represents a momentous leap in understanding, tolerance and compassion; it requires an obligation to act in the best interests of all humanity.

To continue down the current path in which domestic and international behavior is dictated by a passion born of fear and ignorance is to take a journey leading into a horrific future.

This is not the only possible destiny of the human species.  There are other more benign and desirable alternatives.  There is a way out of the madness.  Humans are quite capable of using intelligence to direct and guide their behavior and plan for a future in which all of humanity can share in the benefits of collective action for the good of all people.  To do this, however, old patterns of behavior and thinking need to be discarded and replaced by a new paradigm that envisions all of us as being of equal worth and understands that we depend on a fragile planet with limited resources.  Beneficial change demands that fear, and the suspicion and hatred that necessarily follows, be replaced by compassion, understanding and a determination to work for true social justice and freedom.  These goals cannot be achieved by an imposition of a particular set of values by brute force or economic coercion.  Imperialism represents a viewpoint that depends and thrives upon a world out of balance and it is an idea that is no longer viable.  The urge towards empire is not yet dead, but is has become completely ineffectual, dangerous and counter-productive.

I believe I can say with some assurance that all people desire a world for their descendants in which peace is a reality and a future in which the planet retains its natural beauty and the majesty of all of life.  To achieve this result, a great deal of work is required.  This is a wholly different kind of work, since it requires profound self-examination and a will towards significant change.  The question remains as to whether the species has the wherewithal to take on this challenge.  I hope for the sake of future generations that this is so.   

The first images of the planet taken from space clearly demonstrated that for all human beings and for all of life, for that matter, the earth is our only home.  This conception has, in my judgment, become such an integral part of human consciousness that the current and obvious threat posed by climate change may offer some impetus for reform.  The time may be right to open more effective channels of communication between nations with the focus of developing sustainable economies that would help insure a livable planet for future generations of not only the human species but all the magnificent creatures that constitute the living world.  Simply moving through life with self-interest as the guiding principle is not enough to forestall a major calamity that only concerted human action can avert.

These thoughts do not, by any means, represent new concepts or ideas.  Quite to the contrary, throughout human history there have been voices putting forth the idea of peace and suggesting methodologies to achieve this elusive goal.

In spite of the destabilizing and destructive effects that wars impose upon the human population, staggering amounts of financial and human resources are currently being expended worldwide to prepare for and conduct wars.  Should one, therefore, conclude that aggression is a natural proclivity of the human condition or does it represent abnormal behavior?  There is, at this time, no unambiguous answer to this question.

The scientific disciples embodied within neuroscience and neurobiology are currently making great progress in understanding the intricate structure and function of the so-called “normal” human brain and, therefore, shedding light upon the underlying organic origins of aberrant human behavior.  In spite of these advances, human societies, through law and custom, continue to harbor significant prejudices and suspicion regarding the area of mental illness and dysfunction.  These reactionary attitudes have a significant bearing on the course of human societal development.

There is a tendency to use the life of deranged yet charismatic historic figures such as Adolf Hitler of Germany, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Idi Amin of Uganda as repositories for evil.  This is a simplistic view of human history and fails to take into account the real political, social and economic forces that shape events.  Although these individual were wholly responsible for incredibly evil acts of wholesale violence and death, we must not ignore the fundamental reality that their policies could not have been implemented without a loyal and obeisant following.  They could not have assumed their powerful positions if it were not for the existing historic realities that made their crazed and distorted beliefs seem plausible.  Societies built on a model of true social and economic justice and equality would make such historic developments highly improbable.  This is the lesson that should be learned from history.

Although the news we are constantly subjected to regarding the state of human affairs around the globe gives us cause to be pessimistic about prospects for the future viability of the species, there are also trends that may suggest a different future.  I have come to this conclusion not out of unfounded optimism or purely wishful thinking but rather out of the realization that there exists an insatiable hunger within the vast majority of the world’s people for a more peaceful world grounded in true human equality and social justice.

The desire to satiate this longing is evidenced by the multitude of voices around the globe that are not only insisting upon changes in the status quo but also actively pursuing paths towards the peaceful transition to a sane and viable future.  These voices are everywhere, and cannot be silenced.  This conclusion can be readily verified by simply searching the Internet for those organizations built upon the premise of creating the conditions for a more peaceful and equitable world.  Such organizations focus their attention on human rights abuses and the often intolerable conditions that are the daily reality of hundreds of millions of individuals; these kinds of organizations literally stretch around the globe and are often deeply intertwined.

It might be argued that there are also very powerful forces of oppression focused on limiting human freedom and social justice either for personal advantage or in order to conform to a particular political ideology.  In addition, these forces often use overt violence and aggression as the means to maintain the status quo.  This is no doubt true; however, this type of repressive social paradigm is not sustainable over the long term.  It is not counter-violence that will subdue these historic realities; it is the power of ideas embedded within the bedrock of social harmony and universal justice that will ultimately prevail.  As we have seen in the history of many civil rights movements, true and viable social progress is a painstakingly slow endeavor – the struggle for women’s suffrage worldwide, the abolition of slavery in the United States and the demolition of Apartheid in South Africa are additional examples.

In my judgment, the lesson here is not to give up hope and yield to despair – as enticing as that might seem at times – but to persist in the ongoing struggle for sanity in this exasperatingly human world.  There are many ways to contribute to the interdependent causes of peace and social justice.  May the beginning of every new year bring inspiration, hope and renewal to us all.  

Dietrich Bonhoeffer - A Profile in Remarkable Courage

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was only thirty-nine years old when he was executed at the Flossenburg concentration camp in the South of Germany on April 9, 1945.  He was a pastor and theologian of some renown.  His open opposition to the Third Reich was considered to be a formidable enough threat to the fascist ideology that the leadership determined that he needed to be eliminated.  It is interesting to note that this occurred at a time when the war was reaching its disastrous conclusion in regards to the ill-conceived aspirations of Adolph Hitler.

Bonhoeffer was born on February 4, 1906 in Breslau, Germany – a city that is now Wroclaw, Poland.  He had a twin sister, Sabine, born ten minutes after him.  They were the sixth and seventh children born to Paula and Karl Bonhoeffer; there would be eight children in the family.  Karl Bonhoeffer was an eminent and practicing psychiatrist.   His specialty what was referred to as “intuitive psychiatry.”  This psychiatric approach depends upon intuition rather than analytical reasoning as a way to bring the elements of the subconscious mind into consciousness.  His contemporaries in the field of psychoanalysis were such notables as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.   As a parent he was insistent upon expecting high intellectual standards from all his children.

Bonhoeffer’s maternal great-great grandfather was a well-known and respected theologian and professor at the University of Jena.  His maternal grandmother had studied music under Franz Liszt.  Musical ability had been passed down to Bonhoeffer’s mother who was a talented pianist and singer.  Paula Bonhoeffer was also a highly literate, intelligent and fiercely independent woman; she was also a teacher – an unusual profession for a woman in Germany at the time.  Bonhoeffer was also a talented musician.  Although his father was ambivalent about religion, – not surprising given his profession – his mother took on the spiritual education of her children and Karl did not interfere.

Even at a young age, Bonhoeffer was admired for his gentleness and kindness of spirit.  Although he was athletic and was vigorously competitive, he remained notably fair and measured in his judgment.   He mastered the piano by age eight and when he was ten years old, he could play Mozart sonatas.  At the age of six, his family moved to Grunewald so that his father would be close to the University of Berlin where he secured a prestigious position.  The year was 1912 and two years later was the beginning of World War I.  In that horrendous conflict, Bonhoeffer lost three cousins and another was blinded.  He was personally devastated when his brother left for the front in April of 1918 and was killed two weeks later.  His mother was deeply stricken with grief.  This left a lasting impression on the young boy.

Following Germany’s ignominious defeat, the German economy was plagued by horrendous problems including, unemployment, malnutrition, and disease.   The plight of Germany was further exacerbated as the Great Depression of 1929 swept through Europe.  Furthermore, the draconian provisions of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) – the treaty that ended the war - drained the country of its economic resources.  The cumulative impact of these conditions would ultimately make the German population susceptible to the disastrous fascistic policies and fantastic promises in regards to the future of the “fatherland” that would become the hallmark of the Third Reich.

Following his brother’s death, Bonhoeffer made the momentous decision to become a theologian.  Given the severe hardships endured by the German people, Bonhoeffer was acutely sensitive to his family’s privileged position.  This may have been a contributing factor in his ultimate decision regarding the career he chose to pursue.  He was fourteen years of age (1920) when he brought this decision up with his family.   His father was somewhat disappointed with his choice; for, his family had a long tradition of pursuing professions in law and science.

Bonhoeffer went to the University of Tubingen where he studied religion, philosophy and Hebrew.  He actively pursued sports being endowed with both strength and agility.  As a first year student - during the winter of 1924 – he had a terrible fall while ice skating and suffered a severe concussion.  He spent his eighteenth birthday confined to a hospital bed.  After his recuperation, he spent a term studying in Rome where he taught himself Italian.  During his visit, he was impressed by the strong sense of community he witnessed among Italian Catholics.  This reality had a profound impact on his view of religion; he began to see religion as having a strong communal component.  He began to see the Church as community.

Bonhoeffer pursued further studies at the University of Berlin and focused on liberal theology.  He read Martin Luther assiduously.  He became interested in the Swiss theologian, Karl Barth who was a professor at the University of Gottingen.  He was drawn to Barth’s ideas that were in marked opposition to the thinking of liberal theologians that relegated scripture to an accounting of religious experience, and that focused upon Jesus from an historic perspective.  For example, Barth claimed that in scripture we find “divine thoughts about men, not human thoughts about God.”

Bonhoeffer became somewhat of a theological rebel who was able to express his ideas brilliantly and was gifted with a natural charisma.  Given his propensity towards community, he became interested in parish work rather than becoming an academician.  He enjoyed working with young people who found him to be open, receptive, generous and mostly a good listener. 

On October 18, 1925 he had the opportunity to give his first sermon.  The following is a brief excerpt from that address - “Christianity means decision, change, denial, yes, even hostility to the past, to the men of old.  Christ smashes the men of the past into total ruin.  He smites and cuts through with his sword to the innermost nerve…where the apparently most noble feelings meet with a satisfied morality.”

In 1927, Bonhoeffer received his doctorate in theology.  His dissertation was entitled, The Communion of Saints.  In it, he elaborated upon his idea of Church as community working together to fulfill God’s will on earth.  Following his graduation, he was offered an assistant minister position at a church in Barcelona; he accepted the position.   As part of his post-graduate work he studied, lectured and worked in Berlin, New York and a German congregation in London.  His thesis was eventually published as a book in 1929 as well as his post-doctoral thesis entitled, Act and Being in which he proposed that the Church should not only function as a community but should also be involved in outreach to the community in response to urgent social need.  Bonhoeffer was influenced by Gandhi’s use of non-violent resistance in response to state-sanctioned oppression.

In September of 1930, he was offered a Sloane Fellowship to study at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, a prestigious position.   At first, Bonhoeffer did not expect to learn anything from his stay in America.  However, much to his surprise, he became quite taken with the strong sense of community he found within the Afro-American Church in Harlem.  In addition, he befriended a French scholarship student, Jean Lasserre, who was an outspoken proponent of pacifism.  His arguments were so compelling to Bonhoeffer that he began to reconsider his own position in this regard.  Although he did not entirely embrace pacifism, he was to become a powerful advocate for peace.

During his stay in America, the National-Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP, Nazi Party) had begun to make serious inroads into the political leadership within Germany.  The likelihood of the leader of the Nazi Party, Adolph Hitler, becoming the nation’s chancellor was becoming increasingly more likely. 

Upon his return to Germany, he was deeply troubled by the political situation and entered a period of intense prayer and meditation.  He promoted small group meetings with students that became involved with intense and open theological discussions.  In 1931, he was officially ordained as a minister.  The political atmosphere was rapidly becoming hostile to the churches as the National Socialist Regime was taking steps to control them; some of the Nazi Party leaders wanted to ban the churches entirely.  The Party was skillfully exploiting the economic uncertainty that had gripped the nation; a central pledge of its leadership was to pull the country out of its profound economic depression.

Bonhoeffer was deeply disturbed by these events.  In November of 1932, he delivered a sermon at the Kaiser Frederick Memorial Church in Berlin.  The occasion of this talk was Reformation Sunday that was the traditional celebration of the legacy of Martin Luther.  In this sermon, Bonhoeffer issued the first of his many warnings regarding the perilous situation that the church faced in Germany.   The following is a brief excerpt from that sermon – “Our Protestant Church has reached the eleventh hour of her life.   We have not much longer before it will be decided whether she is done for or whether a new day will dawn.”  Two months later on January 30, 1933, German President Paul Von Hindenburg appointed Nazi Party leader, Adolph Hitler, as the Chancellor of Germany.

As if to confirm Bonhoeffer’s dire warning, Hitler immediately instituted the following measures that made abundantly clear the repressive nature of his regime –

•     The German Parliament, the Reichstag, was dissolved

•     Through a series of executive mandates, Hitler declared himself Fuhrer (leader) and Reich               Chancellor of Germany.

•     Extreme censorship was imposed upon the country

•     Public disagreement with Hitler or his policies was considered to be tantamount to treason.

In defiance of these developments, Bonhoeffer issued a provocative radio address – that had been cut off from broadcast – and distributed copies to students and friends. The following is an excerpt from this address – “If the leader tries to become the idol the led are looking for–something the led always hope from their leader–then the image of the leader shifts to one of a mis-leader, then the leader is acting improperly toward the led as well as toward himself. The true leader must always be able to disappoint. This, especially, is part of the leader’s responsibility and objectivity.”

 A mere four months after Hitler assumed his post, the Reichstag building was burned down to the ground.  Although a leading communist leader was accused of arson and beheaded for this alleged crime, there is a strong suspicion that the Nazis were involved.  Following the destruction of the Reichstag building, emergency decrees were put into place including the suppression of habeas corpus – the right of the accused to due process of law.  Finally, on March 23 of that year (1933), a law was enacted that essentially put an end to German democracy; that law was the Enabling Act that essentially gave Hitler the right to enact laws without the necessity to adhere to the German constitution.

The Nazi regime claimed that the German people had two enemies – the Jews and the Communists.  In order to “protect” the people from these combined threats, the following strategies were employed by the State –

•     Arbitrary search of homes

•     Indiscriminate tapping of phone lines

•     Seizure of property

•     Arrest without probable cause.

As a result of these measures, 26,000 Germans were arrested in 1933 and more than 50 concentration camps were secretly established.  On April 1, Hitler proclaimed a nationwide boycott of all Jewish-run businesses.  Nazi storm troopers used this opportunity to harass and assault Jews.  Bonhoeffer’s ninety-one year old grandmother refused to be intimidated and purposefully shopped at the Jewish business she habitually frequented.  A few years later, the Aryan Clause was promulgated that barred Jews from civil service jobs.  This latter decree personally impacted Bonhoeffer’s sister, Sabine.  Sabine’s husband, Gerhard Leibholz was a Christian of Jewish descent.  As a result, he lost his teaching position at the University of Gottingen and the family immediately became subject to threats.

Bonhoeffer was so disturbed by the cumulative impact of these policies that he gave a talk to fellow ministers entitled, The Church and the Jewish Question in which he claimed that it was the duty of the church to oppose any government that abused basic human rights and that the church had the responsibility to help the victims of Nazi repression.  Some attendees were so appalled and probably frightened that they walked out of the talk.  This represented the first public opposition to the treatment of the Jews.  It was Bonhoeffer’s stated conviction that Christianity and National Socialism could not coexist.  Furthermore, it was his strongly held belief that by not speaking out, churches were, in fact, undermining their own moral authority.

By 1933, the Christian church in Germany had become split into two essentially irreconcilable groups – the German Christians that had a clear Nazi affiliation and the Young Reformers of which Bonhoeffer was an influential member.  He was urged by this group to compose a confession - a statement of faith.  He agonized over the composition of this work that was entitled, The Bethel Confession.  In it, he urged the church to remain true to the bible, to be concerned with the plight of the Jews and to be willing to endure persecution rather than abandon the Jews or any suffering people.  To Bonhoeffer’s great disappointment, this document was so severely watered down after review by twenty theologians that he could not put his signature to it.  Following this personal debacle, he left Germany and traveled to London accepting a position there.  He spent eighteen months abroad where he found some comfort and solace. 

Karl Barth, the famed theologian, had become so unnerved by Hitler’s claim that his “mission” was in accord with God’s plan that he issued the Barmen Declaration that was published in June 4, 1934.  At the core of this declaration was the claim that the Christian message cannot be adapted to suit any political agenda.  This statement of principles became the founding document for the Confessing Church.

In the spring of 1935, Bonhoeffer returned to Germany to the Berlin-Brandenburg District Seminary in Fickenwalde – now in Poland - where he was offered an administrative post; he arrived on April 15.  He used this position to train young clergy on the path of the Confessing Church that focused on the church as community and emphasized Christian responsibility in regards to the issue of social justice.   This viewpoint was in direct opposition to the German Christian church that was aligned with the Nazi Party.  All through 1935, the Nazis tried to dislodge the Confessing Church from any prominent role in church affairs.  The Nazi social agenda was temporarily sidelined, however, in 1936; for, that was the year the Olympics was hosted in Germany.  It was Hitler’s desire to use the Olympics as a showcase of Germany’s alleged superiority as a nation and a people.

Fickenwalde was finally shutdown in 1937 and 800 hundred of its clergy were arrested in that same year.  In spite of this setback, Bonhoeffer continued to secretly train the clergy.  He did so in his house and at secret German locations in Koslin, Schlawe and Gross-Schlonwitz.  He periodically returned to Berlin communicating using secret coded messages and secret mailing addresses.  On April 20th, Hitler’s birthday, the German churches prepared an oath of allegiance that pastors were expected to take.  Bonhoeffer  refused; he was chagrined to learn that many of the confessing church pastors felt compelled to take the loyalty oath.

The situation had grown so dangerous in Germany for Jews that by 1938, 300,000 Jews had fled the country.  On departure they were required to sign over all property to the State.  On September 8 of that year his sister Sabine and her family fled to England.  On November 9, Hitler ordered a massive nationwide event tailored specifically to terrorize the German Jewish population.  This event was referred to Kristallnacht – the night of broken glass.  On that horrific occasion, storm troopers dressed in civilian clothes burned 200 synagogues to the ground and burned and looted more than 7,000 Jewish-owned businesses.  Hundreds of Jews were killed in the ensuing chaos and many were attacked and killed by lawless mobs.  Following that event, 30,000 Jews were sent to concentration camps.

In 1938, Bonhoeffer briefly traveled to England to stay with his sister.   While there, those that were concerned with his continued safety managed to help get him secure a lecturing position in New York at the Union Theological Seminary.   He left for New York on June 4 but stayed only briefly feeling that he had abandoned his country at a time of desperate need.  He returned to Germany on July 7.

Even in the face of the terrible events that gripped Germany, the nation’s churches remained silent including the confessing churches.  This became a turning point for Bonhoeffer; for, he made the momentous decision to become actively involved in the German resistance.  He was introduced to several army generals and Admiral Wilhelm Franz Canaris who were well entrenched within the resistance movement.  Canaris was the head of Abwehr, Germany’s intelligence service, and led the opposition to Hitler’s rule.  He was ultimately executed at Flossenburg concentration camp for his efforts.

World War II began on September 1, 1939 when Germany attacked Poland on a pretext in which German troops, disguised as Polish soldiers, attacked a German radio station on the Germany-Poland border.  In this alleged attack a Jew wearing a German uniform was killed.  Using this sham as a reason for retaliation, Hitler launched the massive German war machine on its unsuspecting neighbor.  In response, England, Australia, France and New Zealand declared war upon Germany.

It was also in September of that year that the Nazi’s were contemplating the mass extermination of the Jews.  Between 1936 and 1939, doctors were required to register all children with birth defects.  By edict, all these children became wards of the State.   They were subsequently killed by poison gas or lethal injection.  Between 1939 and 1941, more than 70,000 children and disabled adults were murdered in this way.  The experience gained from this “study” was used to perfect the machinery for mass extermination.  Bonhoeffer followed these developments very closely.  He ultimately was enlisted as a spy for the resistance using his position as a minister to travel freely and gather information.

The situation worsened for the resistance when on June 17, 1940, France surrendered to Germany.  This was soon followed by the surrender of Belgium and Holland.   Bonhoeffer was effectively leading a double life and between 1941 and 1943 he was constantly on the move.  No one knew of his involvement in the resistance.

In the meantime, the situation for Germany’s Jews grew progressively worse.  Jews were required to wear yellow stars to signify their ancestry.   It was not long before their forcible removal to concentration camps became a matter of national policy.  In July of 1942, Nazi party officials and the Gestapo collaborated to formulate the Final Solution to the Jewish Question.  General Heydrich proposed that all the remaining Jews in Europe and Germany be deported to special death camps in Germany.   Just prior to this, Bonhoeffer got involved with a surreptitious activity called Operation 7 that was engineered to safely get Jews out of Germany with the help of Admiral Canaris.  The plan succeeded over the short term; however, the Gestapo would ultimately uncover the plot and its conspirators by following the trail of money that was used to finance the operation.

With Germany’s situation worsening and drawing to its disastrous conclusion, with the Russians making inroads on the Eastern front and with the mass extermination of Jews well under way, the resistance was primed to move quickly.  In March of 1943, two attempts were made to assassinate Hitler and a final attempt was made on July 20, 1944.  All of these attempts failed.  Although Bonhoeffer was not directly involved in these plots, he was aware of them.  His rationale for this involvement was that the death of Hitler would lead to the saving of millions of lives.

On April 5, 1944, Bonhoeffer was arrested for his involvement in the conspiracy.  During his time in prison, he had an opportunity to think, pray and meditate.  It was within this period of incarceration that he came up with the concept of what he called, “religion-less Christianity.”  A collection of his prison letters was ultimately published.   The following are excerpts from some of these communications -

“The great masquerade of evil has played havoc with all our ethical concepts.  For evil to appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity or social justice is quite bewildering to anyone brought up on our traditional ethical concepts.”

“Subservience and self-sacrifice could be exploited for evil ends.”

“Civil courage, in fact, can grow only out of the free responsibility of free men.”

 “We must take our responsibility for the molding of history in every situation and at every moment.”

“Folly – moral rather than intellectual defeat.”

“Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves.”

“We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do and more in the light of what they suffer.”

On April 9, 1945, Bonhoeffer was executed.  He lived a remarkable life.  He ultimately sacrificed his life for the sake of his strongly held beliefs at a time when the world was enshrouded in such inexplicable darkness.

Henry Wallace

Henry Wallace was born on October 1888 and would ultimately play an important role in American politics during the destabilizing impact of the Great Depression (1929-1938) and the Second World War (1939-1945) – a global catastrophe that would ultimately claim the lives of 50 million human beings.

In spite of the devastating impact that these events exerted on the individual human psyche, Wallace remained optimistic about the future.  He had a vision of a human world at peace that he expressed in the following way, “The day will come when this world will be more secure, when people who ask only to live a good life here and make a living will not be driven to meanness and to littleness, to a calculated denial of the highest capabilities and to hate.  We live by these ancient standards of withdrawal and denial in a world bursting with potential abundance.  The fears, coupled with the narrowness and hatred of our forefathers, are embodied in our political and educational institutions and bred in our bones.  It will only be a little at a time that we can work ourselves free.”

He envisioned a future society that he referred to as a cooperative commonwealth where use and need would drive the economic engine rather than capitalism and its inherent striving for profit.  It was societal model that took the intermediate path between capitalism and socialism.  In addition, his vision included a predominant role for science and technology in shaping a more humane society.  He denounced the excesses of imperialism, yet encouraged the expansion of international trade.  Wallace maintained a democratic ideal in that he was convinced that profound social change would necessarily come to fruition when individuals voluntarily changed their thinking.  Within this ideological framework, he was convinced that science and technology would play a fundamental role in this transition ultimately leading to the development of what he referred to as a “new man.” 

Wallace was the grandson of a Presbyterian minister and grew up in a farm family at a time in the nation’s history when technological changes were having a profound impact on individuals’ lives and livelihoods.  He was a descendent of Scottish Protestants who settled in Ireland around 1690.  His predecessors immigrated to Western Pennsylvania in 1823; they arrived penniless.  His paternal grandfather had an adventurous spirit and became a prosperous farmer.  Wallace’s father, Henry Cantwell Wallace, was a teacher, journalist and farmer who married in 1887 and his son, Henry Agard Wallace, was born in 1888.  Shortly after his birth, the nation experienced a serious economic depression in 1890 that had a deleterious impact on the family’s income.  As a result, his father moved with his family to Des Moines, Iowa.  In this new location, he started a farm newspaper entitled, Wallace’s Farmer. 

Wallace’s father was a leader of the progressive movement of that era and was vehemently opposed to the Bryant-Populist Alliance of 1896. This so-called alliance represented the narrow views of white and poor cotton farmers in the South – a worldview that was decidedly anti-elitist.  At that time, there was a strong farmer-laborer movement that actively protested against what was seen as the New Industrialism.   Wallace’s political philosophy was, in effect, greatly influenced by his family that had a long tradition of progressive activism.

Wallace, following his father’s example, became enamored of journalism and the intricacies and implications of national policy.  Given this progressive mindset, it is not surprising that he became a “New Dealer” – the New Deal represented that set of public policies that became the political trademark of the presidential administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).  Wallace was not without contradiction in terms of finding a balance between the liberal ideal in regards to individual life and the social conformity and the more rigid structures required to accommodate capitalist expansion.  In this regard, he embraced the social liberalism in Europe where capitalism was held in check through the active intervention of the State in the national economy for the purpose of protecting the general welfare.  He also became an advocate of organized labor as a means to constrain corporate power.

After two devastating world wars that dominated the twentieth century, a means was sought to manage the momentum of capitalism – social liberalism was a means to accomplish this as an alternative to socialism.  Within this worldview, the corporate revolution of the nineteenth century had undermined the equality of opportunity and individual freedom as exemplified by the nature of industrial production - especially in regards to factory work where the worker relinquished his freedom during the time of his employ in return for wages. 

In response to the impact of expansionist capitalism, Wallace envisioned a society in which the State would become the mediator - finding a middle ground between laissez faire on one hand and socialism on the other.  This role of government is paradoxical in nature; for, it attempts to condemn social injustice while embracing capitalism as its economic paradigm.  It was Wallace’s hope that the ineluctable advancement of scientific knowledge and its application through technology would necessarily exert a humanizing influence upon the economic system and the general welfare.

In essence, Wallace was an influential advocate for the role of science in society, a devout Christian and was a proponent of a more progressive form of capitalism.   He derived much of the inspiration for his thinking from his religious background.  He had a deep and abiding passion for the Old Testament and saw in the visionary teachings of Jesus Christ a belief in the destiny of humanity to establish a commonwealth of the common man.  A more practical influence for Wallace was the writings of the British economist and thinker John Maynard Keynes – a contemporary of Wallace (1883-1921), who established the principles of modern macroeconomics.  It was these two seemingly disparate influences that steered him in the direction of American liberalism.

Wallace attended Iowa State College in 1906 where he studied plant genetics, agricultural economics and quantitative analysis, demonstrating his interest in science, technology and their application in the field of agriculture.  Wallace became convinced of the essential role of science and technology within the framework of human progress.  In this regard, he was especially interested in the writings of William James who espoused a pragmatic philosophy and view of life.  Another important influence on the thinking of the young Wallace was the work of the economist Thorsten Veblen who wrote the highly influential books, entitled, The Theory of the Leisure Class and The Theory of the Business Cycle and emphasized the need for the use of statistics in defining, quantifying and ultimately resolving economic issues. 

As Wallace’s thinking evolved he came to believe that economic and social institutions failed to keep pace with the ever-advancing technology and that a highly specialized and elite engineering class was required to help direct the progress of humanity.  Within this overarching view he conceived of a unique role for production engineers and statistical economists.  Philosophically, his conceptions may be defined as an evolutionary positivism where progressive social change naturally occurs as more information is made available and society is able to make rational judgments regarding communal problems based on this ever-expanding knowledge base.  Wallace became convinced that with access to technology and sufficient data, humanity would build a cooperative and productive society that he defined as a “cooperative commonwealth.”  He envisioned such a commonwealth as a result of the union of reason and technology.

Wallace’s overall worldview helped determine his political affiliations.  He was contemptuous of President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) and concluded that agriculture fared poorly in the administrations of Presidents Warren G. Harding (1921-1923) and Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929).  These conclusions came in direct conflict with his family’s Republican Party affiliation.  In fact, his father had served as Secretary of Agriculture under both the Harding and Coolidge administrations.

He supported, with some reservations, the candidacy of Al Smith for President, who ran in the 1928 general election.   Wallace enthusiastically embraced the ideas of John Dewey who spoke of the “new individualism” and professed the idea that economic security was a necessary component of true freedom.

With the onslaught of the Great Depression (1929-1938) Wallace characterized the 30’s as representing, “days of great despair.”  As a consequence, he sought implementation of public policies within the political context of social liberalism and advocated for programs calling for public works legislation and currency and credit inflation.

Wallace had a strong desire to seek national office; for, he had confidence that his political ideology had resonance with national aspirations and he felt his message was compelling.  He became a registered Democrat.  Due to his close association with and support of FDR during the general election of 1932, he secured the cabinet post of Secretary of Agriculture and held that post from 1933 through 1940.  In this position, he called for the solidarity of the agricultural and labor interests.   This abiding support of agriculture is not surprising given his upbringing. 

 In his book entitled, New Frontiers (1934), he portrayed Roosevelt’s New Deal as a populist movement striving for economic democracy.  Wallace saw his role in the New Deal as mediating between the extremes of total security and total freedom.

Wallace threw his support to the nomination of FDR to a controversial third term as President – at that time there were no legal limitations upon the number of consecutive terms an individual could serve as President.  The current limitation of two consecutive terms in office for the presidency was set by the 22nd amendment to the Constitution that was ratified in 1947.  FDR threatened to withdraw his candidacy if Wallace was not chosen as his Vice-Presidential running mate and within his formal letter he wrote, “Until the Democratic party made clear its overwhelming stand in support of liberalism and shakes off all the shackles of conservatism and reaction, it will not continue it march to victory.”

Ultimately, it was America’s entry into World War II that ended the Great Depression.  Due to the extraordinary nature of the political and economic climate during that time, Wallace was given unusual authority and responsibility as Vice-President.  He became Chairman of the Board of Economic Welfare (BEW) and a member of the Supply Priorities and Allocations Board (SPAB).  Both of these posts were especially important for a country soon to be on a wartime footing.  He also served as national emissary to Latin America and China.

It is not surprising that Wallace would be vociferously opposed to Hitler’s fascistic vision of the future given his political perspective.  He also took exception to Henry Luce’s conception of the so-called “American Century.”  This term characterized the 20th century as being wholly dominated by America in the spheres of politics, economics and culture.  This conception was first enunciated by Henry Luce, publisher of Time magazine.  Luce was the son of a missionary and was steeped in conservative religious values.  In an editorial that appeared in the Feb. 17, 1941 edition of Life magazine, in which he first referred to the American Century, he wrote that America’s role in international affairs was, “to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." 

Wallace had a contrary notion – he envisioned the 20th century being the century of the Common Man.  He outlined this idea in a speech – and later in a book with same title - he made on May 8, 1942 to the Free World Association.  He foresaw a post-war world embracing prosperity devoid of colonialism and economic exploitation.  It was an idealistic vision that was not well-received amongst the economic and political elite.

Wallace inevitably found himself at odds with some of his peers in government.  This situation became so adversarial that FDR reduced some of Wallace’s official responsibilities, and Wallace ultimately lost the nomination for Vice President to Harry S. Truman during the 1944 general election.  During FDR’s final administration, he offered Wallace the cabinet post of Secretary of Commerce and on April 12, 1945 FDR died leaving Truman as the president.   In September of the following year, Wallace was “relieved” of his cabinet position due in large part to his ongoing disagreement with Truman regarding the new president’s policies directed against the Soviet Union.

In civilian life, Wallace became editor of the New Republic magazine.  In this capacity, he took the opportunity to openly criticize Truman’s handling of foreign policy especially the Truman Doctrine – a doctrine that represented the beginnings of what would be eventually referred to as the Cold War.  Unable to stay away from possibility of reentering public life and countering what he saw as the disastrous policies of Truman, Wallace became the presidential nominee for the Progressive Party during the general election of 1948.  The salient aspects of his party’s platform included friendly relations with the Soviet Union; an end to what Wallace considered to be the politics of fear, an end to segregation, full voting rights for Blacks, and universal government health insurance.  As an expression of his convictions, he adamantly refused to campaign in front of segregated audiences or frequent segregated businesses.  Furthermore, he did not object to the endorsement of the Communist Party for his candidacy.  Taking such positions was deleterious to his chances and he ultimately received a paltry 2.4% of the popular vote.

This last defeat represented his final exit from the public arena.   He subsequently devoted his efforts to farming and made some significant contributions to agricultural science including a new breed of chicken.  In fact, the Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland bears his name.  In looking back at his political career he honestly assessed where he made some errors in judgment especially regarding his naive trust in the nature of Joseph Stalin’s leadership and of his initial views regarding Communism.

Finally, in 1964 he was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis – commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig’s Disease.  He died on November 18, 1965.  In the final analysis, Wallace had made considerable and lasting contributions to the progressive movement in the United States especially in regard to economic democracy at a time when the nation was in the midst of a severe and debilitating series of grave national issues.