Replying to LO29981 --
Jan Lelie <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>A few week ago there circulated an article in The Netherlands
>that also compared WOI to the current crisis (and not with -
>as usual with generals, the previous wars). Your details support
>this view. The nice thing of these stories - including the current
>situation - is the ineventability of the outcome.
Greetings dear Jan,
I wanted to draw similarities between the what&why about to happen in Iraq
with the British-Boer War (1899-1902) and the what&why which happened then
in South Africa. Now it is about oil involving both Britain and the US,
but in those days it was about gold and diamonds involving only Britain.
However, i have managed to find a far better and much older case which
was about beaver pelts, involving France, Britain, Holland and the US. It
is Part III of the
Hau De No Sau Nee Address to the Western World, Geneva, 1977
"Policies of Oppression in the Name of Democracy
-- Economic History of the Hau De No Sau Nee"
It can be found at
< http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/6nations3.html#part3 >
Fellow learners will have to page down about a quarter to find the
original document. Those fellow learners who study it ought to find
a striking number of similarities. It all began in 1609 when
"Samuel deChamplain led a French military expedition that attacked
a party of Mohawk people on the lake now named 'Lake Champlain.'"
We might get misled by thinking that this case was caused by something
which can be called "colonial greed". Many might claim that Christendom
spawned this "colonial greed". But it goes back much further. There was
no Christendom up to 313AD, but only the persecuted Christian church.
When the last persecuting Roman Emperor Diocletian died, there was a
scramble for power. One scrambler was a general called Constantine.
When he marched to Rome to take the power, he had the famous miracle
of seeing a cross in the sky. From this he concluded that the Christian
religion has enough power over the pagan religions to let him win the
battle when fought in the name of it. In 313AD he legalised the
Many claim that Constantine was a Christian. But was he not perhaps
a political opportunist because only just before his death in 337AD he
let himself become babtised? Nevertheless, with him greed entered the
church. About a hundred years later the Emperor Marcianus began to
interfere with the Christian religion to get control over it. But the
response of Saint Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria (which was the
centre for Coptic branch of the church), was clear:
"You have nothing to do with the Church."
He became exiled for this response. The breaking point was reached
with the synod of Chalcedon in 451AD. Led by a political conspiracy,
the Coptic branch of the church was accused of monophysitism, an
infamous lie. Fellow learners can read more about this tragic event at
< http://pharos.bu.edu/cn/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt >
The church became split. Once again the notorious formula
"rule them by dividing them" was applied with success.
So, it all began in 313AD? No, it began much earlier, even long before
the birth of Jesus -- and in no particular country with a particular nation.
For example, Confusius of China himself gave a serious warning:-
"Those who act with a view to their own personal
advantage will arouse much resentment."
This warning still applies. May our leaders take heed of it.
With care and best wishes
At de Lange <email@example.com> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.