THE EVILS OF FACTIONALISM

I have long regarded the world situation as constituting a greatly magnified version of a run-down city neighborhood, wherein portions of its "turf" are claimed, and fought over, by rival gangs of juvenile toughs.  One feature of these kinds of conditions is the forming of alliances among two or more of these street gangs, as well as attempts to undermine existing alliances.  This is true factionalism, in a primitive and fundamental form.  Sadly, these attitudes and practices are resorted to as well by the more mature and successful segments of society--including the highest echelons of leadership within the factions that we call "nations." 

Prior to the commencement of the nightmare called World War I, Europe was entangled in a complex network of alliances.  The Balkan nations were described as a "powder keg of frustrated nationalism," making war "inevitable."  Ironically, we are told, the fear of war caused each powetr to unwaveringly stand by its allies, so as to be ready for the possible day when allies would be necessary for survival.  Thus, Russia had France and England to stand by her when hostilities began; while Austria drew Germany into the fray.  This has been described as a process wherein two of the then more backward or politically bankrupt parts of Europe were able to successfully drag other, further advanced, counterparts into battle--to their collective ruin.

Not many years later, in 1941, prior to the commencement of an equally devastating conflict, V. M. Molotov met on behalf of the Russian faction with Adolph Hitler, leader of the German faction.  An object of the meeting was a coupling of the Russian faction with the existing German-Italian-Japanese alliance.  Meanwhile, the Bulgarian and Turkish factions signed a pact approving and confirming the Turkish faction's reluctance to join the Allies.  Contemporaneously, the Soviet faction was exerting pressure upon the British faction to declare war upon the Finnish faction.  Of course, this hodge-podge of factions eventually exploded into a long and tragic war--a "hot" war
that was followed by a long and troublesome "cold war."  During that latter period, the major powers fostered "proxy wars" between non-nuclear factions, supplying arms and ideals to the combatants.  And these major sponsors organized themselves and their clients into two distinct groupings of factions--comprising two opposing "super-factions," who called themselves the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" and the "Warsaw Pact" nations.  Just like two rival gangs on the streets of, say, Los Angeles, each thought it was right; and each thought the others were the "bad guys." 

In another quarter of our pock-marked world, many Arab factions have found a common bond in their hatred of Israel.  We are told that, in the past, this less-than-unified "common bond" was regularly impaired by a bewildering array of diplomatic maneuvers, coups, and changes of sides--some sides having even occasionbally secured secret Israeli assistance.  Of late, it appears that Islamic resolve has become more unanimous.  But the nature of the problem continues to remain the same:  a situation wherein faction "A" (the Arab world) is pursuing the abolition and destruction of "faction B" (Israel).  And a sorry result of this is the "acting out" on the part of zealot members of the Islamic faction in the form of senseless acts of murder and mayhem--which we call "terrorism"--upon mainly innocent men, women, and children, in Israel as well as other parts of the world.  Of course, the efficacy of these acts is for the most part ineffective; or, more accurately, counter-productive to the eyes and minds of the balance of mankind.  It is respectfully submitted that only that which is proposed herein seems capable of neutralizing today's seemingly hopeless problems, as well as obviating the greater and greater difficulties that continue to accumulate as time goes on.

                                                             * * * * *  
Religion is another basis of factionalism; and, when permitted to do so, has caused much difficulty throughout history, as mistaken zeal has led to what I call "holy hostility," resulting in behavior that no deity could possibly approve.

For example, violence and hatred in the name of religion directed against Christian Armenians in Turkey in 1915 and 1916 left as many as two million of them dead.  Batrtle between Hindus and Muslims in India in 1947 caused 150,000 deaths.  And warfare between Christians in Lebanon during the seventies and eighties cost another estimated 150,000 lives.  By the nineties, at least three thousand persons had lost their lives in Ireland, attributable to fighting between Catholics and Protestants.  And of course, the daily acts of violence and slaughter between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq, which commenced after its invasion, which added a contining threat of outright civil war to the already tragic state of affairs that exists there, is current demonstration that violence in the name of religion continues unabated.

These illustrations could go on and on.  But they would all make the same simple statement:  that murder and mayhem in the name of factional loyalty to a particular version or interpretation of God or His word, has been the basis for much ungodly behavior for many centuries.  This is especially prompted and encouraged when the government of a place adopts or declares a specific religion to be the "official religion" of that place.  It becomes the basis for the aforementioned declarations that "we must correct them," and sometimes consequently, that "we must destroy them!"

                                                       * * * * *