Why should someone attack another unless he or she believes he has the power to win the battle? No one attempts to attack unless the odds are on his side. The side with all the power wins, of course.
The problem that arises is the definition of power. Power comes not from a strong military, but from assuming responsibility to undo the damage you have done. Grabs for power always eventually lead to a loss of power, and they reach their ultimate conclusion when played on an innocent target.
This is what toppled the U.S. power base, and why the issue of no WMD in Iraq is so important.
For conflict resolution, the first requirement, then, is that both sides much be considered equal. The side that appeared to have all the power must be coming down in power, and the targeted side must be rising in power.
Our organization has been going through a hostile takeover bid, and the prize--control of the organization and its lucrative projects--can seem well worth the effort. But, the World Peace Plan is based on the principles of the cooperation of nature, where everyone shares his or her talents and gifts in a series of win-win agreements.
Where does military strength and the capacity to weave an illusion come into the equation in the matter of world peace?
As stated in a pervious post, the leap in understanding is immense for those who stand on the power games. They won't see the potential of the plan. For them it is like seeing an optical illusion from one perspective only, and never see the potential for them to get their life on a higher level.
When Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, said, "Father, forgive them for their know not what they do."
Those who stand on the principles must continue to walk forward, step by step, to bring about the plan, and eventually, those who stand on the power games and games of illusion will lose all their power, and see the potential to get their life, too, by undoing the damage they have done.
Karen Holmes,
Principal