| Subject: Trance seance with Winston CHURCHILL - Part 1 |
Author:
Maryse
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:53:37 03/03/08 Mon
In reply to:
Albert Tucker
's message, "New World Order" on 20:33:32 01/25/08 Fri
Here some suggestions from Spirit Winston CHURCHILL in a trance seance:
Churchill: I don’t have a prepared statement, as my contributions to the world have been well publicised. Most of what I did is very public and speaks for itself.
Sitter: Well! I suppose most people would regard your leadership of Great Britain during World War II as your greatest contribution. Would you agree?
Churchill: Well, as you know, in the course of any one person’s evolution, he experiences many different types of lives, over many, many centuries. In a sense, my lifetime as Winston Churchill was a very intense and work-oriented life, with many goals to be met. From my perspective now, I suppose the achievement I most want to be remembered for is that I was one of a group of people who contributed to THE FIGHT AGAINST DARK FORCES, who were attempting to take control of the planet. It was my privilege to have been a leader of the forces of good at that time.
This is how I view my role now. Of course, when one is in incarnation and doing the job you are supposed to be doing, you do not necessarily have the luxury of understanding the wider purpose for what you are doing. You are too caught up in the day-to-day routine of what has to be done.
Sitter: Sure. You are so intensely involved in what you are doing that it is difficult to see the beginning or end or overall purpose.
There are many questions I want to ask, but let me begin here. You seemed quite prescient about the danger coming from Germany, both before World War I and as soon as Hitler came to power. In retrospect, I suppose anyone with modest intelligence should have been able to recognise the danger of Hitler, but you seem to have been able to recognise the danger of Hitler, but you seem to have been one of the few politicians of the day to perceive this danger and articulate it well. Were you particularly impelled to warn of this danger? Were you guided from higher sources of intelligence, or was it just a matter of common sense?
Churchill: It was some both. The deep philosophical beliefs that I held were being bombarded by the knowledge and fear of what was occurring in the world. The economic times were hard and quite disruptive politically; it was all too easy for people throughout the world to look for strong leadership and follow after chosen idols. Of course, if the people choose a worthy leader, then all is well and good. But Hitler was not a worthy leader.
I attempted to be a voice of conscience for humanity in general and the people of Western Europe in particular. I felt I had a duty to speak out as to what I believed to be the truth. I could see the danger very clearly. I don’t want to leave the wrong impression; I didn’t sit in my study contemplating the role of good and evil on the planet. I just did not like the way the leaders of the Western world were responding to the threats before them.
It is a trait of the Western nations that they practically have to be hit over the head by the full force of a problem before they will accept it as even existing. That was certainly the case in the Thirties. The aggression by Germany was being dismissed as a series of independent events with no common meaning, in the hope that they would simply go away. This was very distressing to me, but the leaders of the time found it very easy to rationalise. Each instance of aggression was seen as an independent military action against this or that country – an event which was not going to affect the rest of the world, so why worry? The leaders hoped Hitler would stop, but did nothing to meet the threat. I was deeply disturbed by these rationalisations – deeply disturbed that people were not more outraged by THE ABUSE OF POWER AND THE ABUSE OF RIGHTS that was occurring. I felt that there had to be at least one strong voice standing up and saying, « We should not be permitting these military actions to occur; it is a violation of everything we know to be just to allow them to continue. »
Sitter: Do you think that humanity in general and Western civilisation in particular have changed their ways about recognising the destructiveness and exploitation of countries led by oligarchies and dictators?
Churchill: No, nothing has changed. I would like to make this comment. One of the major difficulties of being a free country or a democracy is the strong desire to leave other countries alone. This desire leads them to make the assumption that people throughout the world appreciate the value of democracy and will recognise that what is best for a democracy – FREEDOM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT- is also best for everyone throughout the world. As a result, the tendency in the West is to let other people alone. Unless faced with an utter disaster or emergency, democracies are slow to move; that’s inherent in the system. It is government by consensus, and the price one pays for having a democratic society is that the mechanism of decision-making moves very slowly. Consequently, there is a definite inability in Western civilisation to recognise problems in their early stages and take effective corrective action. This is probably the major flaw in Western civilisation - it is not able to act until a problem reaches a state of crisis.
Of course, this is nothing new – and it will probably continue to be the case ad infinitum.
Sitter: We seem to fumble along reasonably well despite all the difficulties, however. I remember your classic statement that democracy is the worst possible form of government – except for all the others. That says a great deal.
Churchill: That’s why I said it [Laughter].
Sitter: After the danger which Hitler represented had been crushed, it became quite apparent to you, as I understand it, that the danger of Stalin and his successors was perhaps even more threatening and imposing. I am curious: do you think you could have altered events if you had not been able to mould the events of the immediate post war period a bit more carefully?
Churchill: From the perspective I have now, it is clear that it was not destined to be that way. The lessons to be learned by the world at that particular time were not fully learned. And, I might say, they are still not fully learned. Had I been permitted to stay in office, I would have continued to express my outrage at what was happening: that a government, which was intrinsically similar to the one we had just defeated, was being allowed to spread its influence. I knew the fight had not ended. Nonetheless, I was not in office. My mandate had ceased, and in a real sense, I was very tired of carrying the banner. I hoped someone would pick it up and carry on, but no one did. As the years progressed, it became clear that we had not won the war; we had only won a battle.
Sitter: Yes. I sometimes tell my Marxist friends, much to their displeasure, that communism is just Nazism warmed over. The big lie is different, the propaganda is better, but everything else is just about the same.
Churchill: It is important to realise that communist governments have also become more sophisticated as the years have gone on. They learned from Hitler’s mistakes, and their own mistakes, and have realised that there are more effective ways to carry out their schemes. The world has become more sophisticated since Hitler’s demise.
Sitter: I will want to return to this point in a while, but first I want to pursue what you said a moment ago about the difficulties democracies have in responding to danger from within and without. What can we do? What would you recommend to those of us here and to people in other democracies throughout the world? What can we do to preserve our freedoms and our integrity in the face of threats?
Churchill: It is a question of good leadership. Who is in power? Who is providing the information about the problems the society confronts, and who is providing the analysis of those problems and the solutions to those problems?
In a democracy, the populace has the responsibility to choose the leadership. Therefore, the public has the ability to project into power individuals who are decidedly incompetent in dealing with subtle issues as well as major problems. Indeed, one of the major fallacies in a democracy is the tradition that in order to become leader, one has to promise many things to the populace which may not make sense – and, I might add, generally do not make sense in the greater scheme of things. In America, for example, there are major voting blocs which have a very great impact on choosing the leadership of the country.
As a result, your leadership tends to be noted for what it can do for these particular segments of the population, or even for the population as a whole. Individuals are not elected to office because of their administrative abilities or their quick intelligence or their ability to handle sophisticated national problems; they are elected because they « seem » most likely to give people what they want.
Sitter: In fact, the public is often threatened by people who are very witty, sharp, and powerful. I think the American public is frightened we might have another imperial President.
Churchill: An imperial President is not so bad.
Sitter: Yes, I know.
Churchill: If you have the right imperial President.
[Laughter.]
Sitter: Yes.
Churchill: And that is a major difficulty. The leaders of democratic countries are not picked because of their competence or qualities, but because of the promises they have made. This state of affairs leads to a decidedly lower quality of leadership – which, I might add, we are suffering from at this time in a majority of the Western world.
Sitter: Do you see any hope for us?
Churchill: I suspect we will go through a period in which the populace becomes quite disenchanted with the people who are in power, and as a result, will change the criteria they use for electing leaders. Until these criteria change, however, the problems will get much worse, because the leadership of Western world is not particularly suited for making the hard, critical decisions which are necessary.
Sitter: Do you see any risk of calling forth a charismatic demagogue, instead of a genuine leader?
Churchill: There’s always that risk, isn’t there? Talking with you here is enjoyable. I haven’t had a podium to speak from quite a long time.
Sitter: I could tell, from reading your biographies, that you enjoyed holding forth, whether it was in Parliament or at home. It fit you. You seemed to have quite a magnetic effect on others, glowering them into silence or overwhelming them with your aura of power, no matter whether they were colleagues, subordinates, or enemies. It was said in one of the biographies that you were a veritable lightning rod for conflict.
Churchill: That was part of my role, I suppose.
Sitter: And perhaps stimulated some deep thinking, too?
Churchill: Off course! I love to argue. I loved to discuss problems, handle difficulties, tackle crisis, point out shortcomings, and come out victorious.
Sitter: Since we’re on this subject, could you comment on what it takes to make a real leader? You obviously had a great deal of what we could call « nerve », push, and an eagerness to take charge of things, but you also had an enormous amount of talent.
Churchill: I would say that the major requisite of leadership is being able TO SPEAK THE TRUTH as the conscience of humanity. That’s a rather sweeping statement, so let me dissect it for you.
Leadership entails striking a chord in every individual in the nation or group you are leading, so that each individual will think that the leader is speaking the truth, is correct, and is representing what he believes. But it’s not just enough to know which chord to strike; the leader must have the qualities which will enable him to act. He has to be able to take the large picture of his philosophical insight and translate it, through management skills, into decisions. It’s also a matter of being able to understand and be in harmony with the philosophical premises of the group that is being led. Where all of these factors are combined, you have a strong case of effective leadership.
Sitter: That’s a striking and succinct way of describing genuine leadership. It sounds like the more uncommon aspect of it is the ability to be in rapport with the guiding principles of the group. That is something you would almost have to be born with, isn’t it?
Churchill: Yes –it’s more an intuitive « knowing by knowing », rather than something anyone can learn. It is the ability to understand humanity as a collective entity – being able to understand the basic beliefs and desires of a group of people, and being able to express them lucidly as well as understand them personally. It also requires the ability to demonstrate this understanding to the people and then, once your leadership position is established, having the intellectual capabilities and wherewithal to rally the public.
A leader has to do much more than just take charge of functions and responsibilities, ex oficio. He must be an individual of vision who can recognise what ought to be happening, and identify what is possible and what can be achieved. To do that, he must be in harmony with the basic premises of the group. That does not mean that he sends out a bunch of pollsters to find out what the public feels or likes about this or that subject. I don’t mean that at all. The leader transcends the level of simple self-interest and strikes to the heart of the matter. He taps the core of the public’s values.
As you mentioned, this is not always easy to do, but the good leader is able to tap this inspiration – and it is an inspiration – and then speak out – He speaks for the people, championing what they believe to be right, fighting for what they would fight for, and opposing what they would oppose. He makes their enemies his enemies; their heroes, his heroes. He leads the people where they want to go, but knowing, in some mysterious way, that they are pushing him.
A leader of people is aware of these guiding principles and then acts forthrightly, with tremendous skill and daring and courage, knowing that he draws his power from the people he leads. He therefore has a tremendous obligation to handle himself correctly – not just to worry about his own personal feelings and how history will view him, but to be more concerned with what is really right for these people.
Now, I’m not saying that the leader literally sits down and thinks through these steps; it’s an innate, automatic process of aligning yourself with these forces. It happens intuitively and somehow the inspired leader manages to do the right things. To be successful, however, you have to have this almost mystical rapport with the people you lead. You have to have nerve. You have to have courage. You have to take on the opposition and challenge them and bargain with them and fight with them and argue with them – whatever is necessary to honour the interest of the people you serve.
The leader himself is led by the people he appears to lead. He is the man who most successfully follows their innermost heartfelt values and convictions.
Sitter: It seems important to me to stress that the genuine leader is led by the «inner » ideals and goals of the people, not just their whims and prejudices.
Churchill: That’s true, but I don’t want anyone to get the idea that a dreamy-eye visionary is going to be a good leader. He isn’t.
Sitter: No.
Churchill: He may be nothing more than a powder puff in a hurricane. The real leader has the ability to articulate clearly what needs to be done and take appropriate action. He takes on the moral responsibility and the physical problems of seeing a cause through to its logical end. He must be an intensely practical person, a master psychologist who can read human nature accurately and deeply and then work realistically with it.
Sitter: From what you’ve been saying, it also seems that the leader would have to know a great deal about civilisation and where it is headed. You seem to be thinking in terms of the evolution of civilisation itself.
Churchill: Yes – the evolution of civilisation in the physical plane and life as it exists on the planet, rather than the more esoteric elements of civilisation. Those would be more intuitive realisations.
Sitter: You had a tremendous grasp of the traditions of your own country and of history. This seems to be something which is sorely neglected here, but then we are still a young country. Would this be one of the ways one might prepare himself to perceive and absorb the philosophical perspective of a group of people, by studying the history of its traditions?
Churchill: Absolutely. A thorough study of history is almost mandatory in being able to understand the tides of civilisation and the problems humanity has dealt with. Remember this: many of the problems humanity is dealing with today is merely subproblems of a greater problem. The subproblems have occurred throughout history and will continue to recur until the lessons involved are fully learned.
As you read history, even though you may not understand why all these patterns are occurring, you certainly begin to discern the patterns and problems that have been dealt with before. You also begin to see that they are recurring again – and are being managed now with inlay slightly more competence than before.
Sitter: Yes. The nation which most frequently accuses other nations of imperialism is probably the most imperialistic nation the world has known for thousands of years. I’m speaking of Russia, of course! The same problems are being repeated there, with very little indication that anything has been learned.
Churchill: Well! I’ve always maintained that the people who complain the most are the ones with the most to cover up.
Sitter: Of course!
Churchill: That’s a general rule I firmly held to and used.
Sitter: Yes. There’s one other element of leadership I want to ask you about. You seemed to have an extraordinary ability for seizing opportunity and for the right timing. This must be more than luck. My own observation is that it is partly an intuitive talent to somehow sense the tides of human affairs and time your moves correctly, thereby maximising the effect you seek.
Churchill: That’s not a bad answer to your own question.
[Laughter.]
Sitter: A nice timed comment, too. [More laughter.]
Churchill: Well! This is a part of leadership, as you surmise. In my case, I knew I had something important to accomplish, something I knew to be right. And so I waited for the doors to open, which they did. It’s something akin to knowing that you have to dash from one building to another, but it is raining fiercely outside. You don’t have to go immediately, however; you can make your trip anytime in the next hour. So you wait for the rain to lighten up or perhaps stop altogether before venturing forth. The poor leader would rush right out in the middle of the downpour and get drenched, but the intelligent one would watch out the window and wait for the rain to stop or slow down, and then make a dash for it, knowing full well that the rain will probably start up again.
In a sense, humanity is influenced by similar tides, too. There are good times and bad times to present ideas, promote programs, and take action. Theoretically, an idea can be presented almost any time, but that is not really the case: there are times when the resistance may be less and the idea will be better received. There are other times when the idea would encounter an uphill battle. It’s a question of keeping your goals and ideals in the forefront of your mind, but knowing that there is an ideal time for pursuing them, and waiting for that time.
Sitter: I’m thinking in particular that recent foreign policy decisions in the United States have been made with incredible poor timing, and the consequences have been obvious.
Churchill: Yes. Timing is everything.
Sitter: Suppose someone reading this interview is in a position of leadership and has some of these leadership qualities we’ve been discussing, but wants to bring them out more fully, in an enlightened way. What kind of advice would you give such a person?
Churchill: I can answer that only in principle.
Sitter: Sure!
Churchill: And we’ll have to assume that this person already has a good capacity for organising his time, gathering the right associates, and acting in a practical manner. If that’s the case, then I think the place of such a person to begin would be to identify very clearly his long-range goals of leadership. This is important because all of the actions the leader takes, day by day, and all the decisions he makes ought to be in harmony with these long-range goals. It is from these long-range goals that the leader draws his power to lead, and is able to see how to align himself with the people he serves. It enables him to identify his adversaries and opposition, too, so that he can be alert to everything that will affect steady progress toward attaining those goals.
My second suggestion then would be to learn how to compromise. There’s always more we can learn about dealing with other people and bargaining, compromising, and trading favour for favour in order to achieve what you need. I suppose that will look horribly manipulative and expedient in print, but compromise is a very practical talent of leadership. It is absolutely essential for successful leadership. Leadership is not dictatorship, where the leader imposes his will. It is not fanaticism. You have to be able to compromise.
Some people may not understand this, but you also have to identify who’s going to be your friend and who’s going to be your enemy. You also have to understand that this population of friends and enemies keeps changing – they change the buttons on their lapels from week to week almost. Friends become enemies, and enemies become friends. Some will always remain enemies, however, and the good leader must take care never to slip up in a confrontation with them. In some cases, success can only be measured in terms of how well you manage to hold down the opposition. That may sound devious and manipulative, but it’s what it takes. You have to be bold and strong and courageous and resourceful, and sometimes a bit Machiavellian.
Sitter: A long that line, it may be useful to remind people that Machiavelli, after all, was a philosopher of the use of power by governments. He was not a devious as some people believe; just frank. It’s always been my impression that the label « Machiavellian » has often been used fanatically to discredit certain legitimate uses of power, by making them sound evil or horrible.
Churchill: Well! Let me tell you, I can speak as an authority on that. If you ever encounter someone in a large organisation or government who has a reputation of being all sweetness and light, you had better believe that he has the most successful public relations people in the world working for him. You can admire him for that, but don’t ever be tricked into thinking he really is all sweetness and niceness. No effective leader ever is.
Sitter: The enlightened and intelligent use of power probably deserves a bit more discussion here. That power is not abstract, is it? It has been my observation that it becomes quite tangible to the leader, and can have a tremendous impact on his life as well as the work he is trying to perform.
Churchill: It can be quite deceptive, too, and that poses a tremendous problem. The leader does not tend to feel it at times, yes. And he sees people being overwhelmed and awed by his presence, but it doesn’t occur to him that it’s the power that’s creating this effect. He thinks it is himself or the trappings of the office, and discounts it and forgets it.
It’s easy to assume that you are not being affected by the tremendous power which comes to you. But it is a constant part of your life. Many people surrender power to you just because they are in awe of you – or because they are afraid of you or hate you. That is a form of power, too. Much power comes to you that is unwanted and unnecessary, but it comes anyway and has to be dealt with. And it’s terribly deceptive to try to estimate how well you are in charge of all that power and influence. But if you are going to be a leader, you had better learn to handle the power, wanted or unwanted, because unless you are able to deal with it, it can corrupt you and bring out the very worst in you. For example, it will bring out any egotistical elements in your character. You may have been quite able to keep them in check before, but a great deal of power will bring them out and magnify them. And it does all kinds of other things as well.
To some extent, coping with power is a standard risk the leader has to assume; you must have to learn to deal with it as best you can and go on. Most people in leadership positions actually do learn to deal with the power. And you are always surrounded by people who can protect you and calm you down and tell you, not always in words, that you’re out of line or overreacting to some problem. The leader tends to have lots of help in that way. [Laughter]. But, I suppose, you can say it’s never enough.
Sitter: What about the constructive side of power? Why is this power necessary?
Churchill: If you are going to have a society functioning at anything other than the caveman stage, power is going to be necessary, because you have to organise the people in the society. As soon as a community of people is formed, you begin to have community problems – a new level of problems which did not exist until you got together. They may be problems of how to handle the community garbage or how to work and live together, but they have to be resolved.
It is the evolution of society which permits the beginning of culture and civilisation, but with that comes responsibilities which can only be handled by the community, whether it’s maintaining a school system or building roads. There are areas of general interest which only a government can properly handle, whether it’s fire and police protection, or the court system, or whatever. Society clearly has a legitimate and important need for effective government. Meeting those needs is the constructive use of power.
The power comes out of the collective needs of the community of people. In this day and age, this is hardly a new concept, but it is wise to remember that it is still an idea much of the world is getting used to. It was the Founding Fathers of the American nation who clearly identified that the right to govern came from the people. American citizens take it for granted, but it was a relatively innovative concept at the time, and is still not fully recognised.
The needs of the people are not the total basis for the power and right to govern, but they do constitute one of the most important sources of that power. It comes from the people. The proof of this statement is that if there is ever any government which for a persistent period of time fails to serve adequately y the needs of its people, it will be overthrown, one way or another – voted out of office, or bombed out of office, or whatever the tradition is in that country. [Laughter.] The needs of the nation and community must be served. Sometimes it is just a few wealthy citizens, sometimes it is the majority of the people, but the power does come from the people.
Sitter: I would like to go back to a comment you made a little while ago that sometimes the problems we are dealing with in civilisation are really subproblems of ongoing global schemes. What would be some of the dominant patterns that concerned you in your career, and how are they being handled today? I’m referring especially to your fight against dictatorships and tyrannies, economic trends, and so on.
Churchill: The cause we fought for in the Second World War has not fully triumphed. The world today is faced with essentially the same problem – the suppression of individual freedoms. Certain political schemes which seek to deny these freedoms are still trying to spread themselves throughout the world and control humanity. This has not changed for thousands of years, and once again the snake is beginning to rise.
Sitter: What are the real roots of that problem? It is certainly not a problem of bad leadership, is it? Aren’t the roots in this inherent in human nature itself and its lack of maturity, its collective pettiness, and its greed?
Churchill: In a sense, yes. The stage humanity is going through can be likened unto an eight-year-old who wants everything for himself and has very little concern for others. As long he is provided with a candy bar every day and all other things he wants, he will be happy and satisfied. This is why the public is so easily mollified by leaders who promise and attempt to give them everything they want. And we can expect this problem to recur continually until each individual determines for himself that this is not the way it should be.
Sitter: Is there anything else that can be done, besides waiting for conditions to get hopelessly bad and then have some saint rise out of the masses to lead us back to sanity?
Churchill: Do you have a suggestion? [Laughter]
Sitter: Actually, I do. In this day and age of easy mass communications, is n’t it possible to use the free press and media to WARN THE WORLD MORE VIGOROUSLY OF ABUSES? For instance, millions of people have being killed for the sake of ideology in Cambodia, and there was a mass exodus of people from Cuba to the United States. I do not believe the propaganda value of these communist atrocities and failures is being fully exploited. There is a tremendous message in these events to warn the free people on this planet about the dangers of certain governmental practices. Shouldn’t something more be done to alert the public?
Churchill: Oh, absolutely – but keep in mind the limitations inherent in human nature at this time. The public will take the attitude, « I hear the message, but let’s not worry about that, because I’m okay, and until it affects me directly, I don’t want to hear about it. » Unfortunately, until the very existence and viability of Western civilisation is physically threatened, the problems of tyranny, dictatorship, and suppression are merely problems that OTHER people have, in faraway, distant countries.
Remember that my efforts to warn Europe about the treat of Germany were ignored for years and years, until it was almost too late – and those were threats which were close at hand, not remote like Cambodia.
Sitter: Yes, we better not forget that. But it seems to me that our daily lives are more affected by international problems than once was the case. For instance, as we discuss this problem, Iran still holds fifty-two Americans hostage. We are constantly reminded of what the Iranian government has done to our citizens. And then there is the energy crisis: the constant escalation of oil prices affects us all. Whenever we buy gasoline for the car or pay our fuel bill at home, international politics are coming home to roost. So I think there may be more of an awareness of international problems than forty years ago.
Churchill: I appreciate that line of thought, but I ought to remind you that since the Arab perpetrated the original blackmail, the prices of oil have skyrocketed and yet virtually nothing has occurred. VIRTUALLY NOTHING!
Sitter: That’s true.
Churchill: And until the economies of the West are in the throes of a major depression, caused by the inability to get oil, or the high price of oil, the West will continue to pay the price. The leaders will watch their economies get ravished by what amounts to greed and blackmail, but until it causes a major problem – until the factories are closed and the cars can no longer be driven – no major steps will be taken.
It’s very clear that they have NOT been taken.
Sitter: I’d have to say that you are right. I’d also say in the same breath that it is stupid not to appreciate the message we have been receiving now for years of what is going to happen, if we fail to act.
Churchill: At the first hint of this problem, the competent leader would have seized upon it and struck the responsive chord of the citizens, saying, « Here is this major problem and here is what we have to do. » The oil problem was accurately assessed years and years ago, but unfortunately no leadership emerged to solve it. In fact, what has happened is embarrassing and disgusting; the leaders of the nations, being blackmailed, have simply manoeuvred politically to try to insure a more favourable position with those who are perpetrating the blackmail! That is indicative of a very low state of leadership.
Sitter: Do you see a parallel between Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938 and what we have done regarding the oil crisis in the last five years?
Churchill: Of course!
Sitter: The same thing – we’ve sold ourselves out?
Churchill: Absolutely!
Sitter: Well, where does it all end?
Churchill: My deep sense of what is going to occur is that the problem will be solved. Certainly, the solutions are there – there has been no lack of analysis or consideration of various ways to resolve this particular crisis. The solutions have been vocalised; the real problem is the lack of leadership to coordinate and implement the solutions.
There will be no miracle; we should expect no avatar to come and change water into oil [Laughter] and there won’t be any space ships floating in from Sirius to give us an unlimited supply of energy. [More laughter]
The tide of humanity will flow in the same way it has in the past; nothing will be done until the problem reaches crisis proportions, but I do expect it to be solved.
It’s interesting how the word « crisis » has been bantered around in the last twenty years. It has been overused and the public has become jaded. Many people did not believe that the oil crisis, which occurred in 1973, was a crisis at all, because it didn’t really appear to be one. This is a problem of ineffective communication by leaders. The true leader in 1973 would have said:
« We have the potential for a crisis if we do not act now. Here are the steps we must take to prevent possible disaster. »
Instead we were deluged with exercises in semantics. Now the potential crisis has become reality, but nothing has been done. Zero!
Sitter: There are some people who have recommended rather stringent methods of dealing with the crisis, but they get shouted down on the premise that it will be too difficult to bite this particular bullet.
Churchill: That’s right: the pocketbooks and well-being of the populace have not yet been pushed up against the wall. It has been difficult but not yet unmanageable.
I sometimes wonder if we are as defenceless against the Arabs as we seem to believe ourselves to be. There should be a little more that we could do.
Churchill: Absolutely! There are myriads of approaches, which could be taken in regards to this problem, and they have been discussed. They are no secret. However, as I said, we are suffering of a dearth of leadership in the Western world; our fear and greed have overtaken our confidence in the ability to solve these problems. The only way that the tide can be shifted from fear and greed to confidence in dealing with the problems is by having the problems rammed down our throats.
Sitter: It sounds as though you would be delighted to do the ramming if you had a physical body to express yourself through. [Laughter]
Churchill: Naturally.
Sitter: Could we be using our great wealth – our industrial supplies and our agricultural production – as economic weapons to combat the blackmail of the Arabs?
Churchill: I answered that question in a roundabout way. In world politics and in world relationships, as in any relationship, there is a civil and just way to interact with others, and there is the ancient art of cheap shot. [Laughter]
Sitter: We can’t behave like the Arabs, can we?
Churchill: it is always preferable to deal with other nations in the proper and gentlemanly way; I infinitely prefer it. But when the other nation begins to resort to cheap shots and low blows as the primary expression of their foreign or economic policy, it is not a good idea to continue presuming that they are acting in a proper and gentlemanly way. Sometimes, the only way to counter their behaviour is with a cheap shot or low blow of your own.
It’s as though you were dealing with an uncouth individual who will understand you only if you speak the same language that he does. The attempt should be made not to lower your moral persuasion as to the correct way to deal with others, but when it becomes necessary, the leader must not be afraid to speak in a language which will be heard by the other party.
I believe we have reached the point where our gentlemanly conduct is going unnoticed; the normal diplomatic channels which have been used so well among civilised people for so many years are not being honoured in certain areas of the world anymore. In certain instances, therefore, a more direct method of communicating should be used.
Sitter: In other words, we cannot treat s.o.b.’s as though they are gentlemen, because they don’t respond.
Churchill: No! You cannot go into the forest of the Amazon and treat the natives as you would a fine old English gentleman.
Sitter: Parallel to what you’ve been saying, President Nixon makes the point in his book « The real War », that the real third world war started quite some decades ago as an economic and politic war waged by Russia in order to corner the world’s energy and mineral resources – energy in the Middle East, minerals in Africa. Is that what is actually happening – that there is a premeditated global plan of conquest in order to bring the West to its knees, because Russia controls energy and minerals?
.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
