In mythology, Cassandra is a priestess “condemned” to issue accurate prophecies that no one believes – that is, she is condemned to issue accurate recommendations but which are of “no use” because they do not modify the behaviour or the “decisions” around her, that is, no one listens to them- as for the results, she could have said “nothing”, or “everything”… and it is the “same”.
In December 1919, the book The economic consequences of peace, by J.M. Keynes was issued and immediately became a best-seller, translated into a dozen languages, has not stopped being printed to this day.
The book is a discussion of economics and international relations, the result of Keynes’s experience as part of a group of advisors to the United Kingdom in the treaty that emerged from the First World War. Position which he resigned to when he was not heard, especially regarding the consequences of the sanctions imposed on the former “German” empire – which was now the newly created Weimar Republic and after some “turbulence” and “separation”, it would end up being the “unified” German republic.
Apart from describing the negotiations – more or less, or apparently – as a conjunction of personalities and interests seeking revenge and power instead of well-being and long-term peace and not skimping on descriptions of those personalities, sometimes in the style of “daily mail” – the British Prime Minister is described as “a femme fatale… with six or seven senses not available to ordinary people… capable of manipulating the “slow-minded” and “bewildered”…-etc. Keynes regards the treaty and sanctions as “abhorrent” and its consequences as the “worst” possible, warning European powers that they could be “inviting their own destruction, by being so deeply and inextricably intertwined with their “victims” through hidden economic and psychic ties”.
Throwing warnings in much more eloquent – almost “biblical” terms: “Must we not base our actions on better expectations, and believe that the prosperity and happiness of one country promotes that of others, that the solidarity of man is not a fiction, and that nations can still afford to treat other nations as fellow creatures?”
By the 1930s, the warnings had turned out to be almost entirely true and although Europe – and the world – in its “last minute panic” lifted some sanctions and somewhat changed the attitude towards the “defeated”… it was too little and too late. What followed was the predicted “carnage”—but unprecedented in its ferocity and “surrealism.”
Keynes, by then a celebrity, the first “economist” recognised as such to acquire that status – which was “resented” by other “stars” – and his book a “classic”, one of the first to have that status and be read massively – unlike another economics book that continues to be treated as a “symbol” and “icon” of “evil” or “good” instead of being read and analysed – it was even nicknamed Keynessandra by one of his friends and he himself described what he had done as “Cassandra’s work.”
But did the “Keynesssandra effect” end there? Not really. During the Second World War he issued all possible warnings about the balance in the economy that would have to be established in the postwar period. And in 1943, he was present at Bretton Woods – a conference where the order of currencies and exchange after the war was decided- and made proposals about a world organisation that would issue its own currency and intervene in any imbalance, preventing the fact that it was the winning power establishing the unsustainable “gold standard” and thus avoid tension and “trade” wars and the “domino effect” of the crises in the United States as well as the abysmal differences between access to goods and security in various regions of the world… perhaps this sounds “familiar” to us… and it is because he was obviously not “heard” either – apart from some concessions to his ideas when forming the first international organisation that ended up being the IMF.
The fact is that this should draw our attention to what it means to be heard and under what conditions someone is “heard.” Keynes could have been a celebrity, a Sir, someone respected by his peers and by “neophytes”… etc. or someone not respected, a “criminal” or “outcast” without titles or money, young or old…etc… the result appears to be the same: the world in general behaves like an “addict” who may understand that what he “likes” will end up “killing him,” but he will not stop doing it – unless he stops “enjoying” it or finds something he “enjoys” more.
In essence, the warning is that “economic” relations are a direct reflection of “hidden” relations of constant exchange between people, countries and regions. And if there is an imbalance between these variables- which we are not aware of – will explode in our “face” as conflicts and wars, and eventually we will feel what we saw “outside” or in “others”, in our own flesh.
We can “understand” this, even relate it to our own history or experiences and try to “accept” it in our “mind”, but it will not modify our behaviour – for that we would have to change the sensation of pleasure we feel when we can see others “from above”, “below ourselves”.
This last change would surely be seen as “meaningless” or “childish” or a “simpleton” idea even by the great academics and studies of “history”, but without that real change within each person, including the more “sublime” ideas and advances will be converted into a “swimsuit catwalk,” dangerously playing at showing off without barely disguising their intentions, as “important” and “powerful” – using for that the possession of atomic bombs or a “decision-making” position in the UN or the IMF…etc… smiling “radiantly” while they do not realise their “actions” and are “admired”…etc.
That is, only a real change in inner sensation can open the possibility of truly “listening” – and this is the key condition for being “heard.” And this changes “everything” – it’s like the difference between “demanding” that they give me “what I want”, and asking that what “I want” changes and agrees with everything that – really – surrounds me.
What happens in terms of the “parade” and the “crowns” and “glitter” becomes “irrelevant” – “anything” can happen, but what happens is related to and subject to “real” and “definitive” change and not the other way around.
Let this be in praise of those who have truly managed to “listen” – and have surely been heard.
Snakeeskin 