the various degrees of a world…safer or less safe…

“If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy,
the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”

C.S. Lewis

“Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living.
The world owes you nothing.
It was here first.”

Mark Twain


You see this picture of Winston Churchill?

You can clearly see the Prime Mister, along with several commanding officers,
surveying some of the British troops.

Off to the far right of the photograph walks Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery,
the senior serving officer to the British army during WWII.
General Montgomery was crucial to the success of Allied forces
defeating Hitler and his mindless Nazi murder machine.

And here we see another picture…

(AP photo 1959)

It’s an actual photograph the was used by the AP Press and taken
the year I was born, 1959.

I’m fortunate to have several actual photographs of Churchill that were used
in both magazines and newspapers throughout his life.

I think they call these first edition or simply original photographs with documentation.

The picture I have was taken 19 years following the initial
photograph from 1940.

In the first photo, we see two leaders, along with their troops,
as they were all preparing to embark on a world war that would
determine the course of Western Civilization’s democracy.

An embarkation for the betterment of the free world.

The second picture shows two older, yet no less formidable,
men greeting one another before attending a meeting of Parliament regarding
the Suez Debate.

19 years had passed and they and their input were still considered viable
and even necessary.

Both of these men were from what we consider a first world country.
81 years ago they were preparing to do battle against men also from
first world countries. As well as second and even third world countries.

Today we hear a great deal about a first world and her “problems”—
spoiled problems really.

Problems that consist more of want rather than need.

Problems about such things as to where we might wish to go out to eat?
“What do you mean the movie I wanted to see is sold out?”
“Why can’t I get my new appliances in when promised?…
You know the current ones I have are outdated!”
“Why can’t the dentist get me in this afternoon vs tomorrow?”

On the flip side, third would problems are based primarily on a basic need
of survival—
it is not so much based upon wants and whims but rather upon survival needs.

“We need to find clean drinking water.”
“The drought has destroyed our family’s only source of food.”
“We must walk 25 miles in order to find a doctor in the neighboring
town to help the baby get well.”

On my end, I’ve been reading and hearing a lot about first world problems.

“A mother laments that her daughter can’t find a dress in her correct size
for the homecoming dance—
there seems to be a production and material shortage.”

“This house we’re building is taking much longer than we anticipated
because our builder can’t get the lumber.”

“I really wanted that new couch for the den but it would blow the budget.”

These are problems more of want and convenience rather than that
of need and survival.

So I got to thinking…

We know there are first world problems, if you can call them problems–
and we know there are third world problems—problems about basic needs…
shelter, protection, medicine, food, water…

But…wait…what of second world problems??
Is there even such a thing as a second world?

After a little investigating, I discovered that there is indeed a
category of a 2nd world…but we never really hear about it do we?

According to

What is Second World?
The outdated term “second world” included countries that were
once controlled by the Soviet Union.
Second world countries were centrally planned economies and one-party states.
Notably, the use of the term “second world”
to refer to Soviet countries largely fell out of use in the early 1990s,
shortly after the end of the Cold War.

But the term second world has also been used to cover countries
that are more stable and more developed than offensive term
“third-world” countries but less-stable and less-developed
than first world countries.
Examples of second-world countries by this definition
include almost all of Latin and South America, Turkey, Thailand, South Africa,
and many others.
Investors sometimes refer to second world countries that appear to be
headed toward first world status as “emerging markets” instead.

By the first definition, some examples of second world countries
include: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania,
Russia, and China, among others.

With regard to the second definition, according to geo-strategist
and London School of Economics doctorate Parag Khanna,
approximately 100 countries exist that are neither first world (OECD)
nor third world (least-developed, or LDC) countries.
Khanna emphasizes that within the same country there can be a
coexistence of first and second; second and third;
or first and third world characteristics.[1]
A country’s major metropolitan areas may exhibit first world characteristics,
for example, while its rural areas exhibit third-world characteristics.
China displays extraordinary wealth in Beijing and Shanghai,
yet many of its non-urban regions are still deemed developing.

So I find it interesting that nations such as China and Russia, our
long hard fraught archnemeses, our adversaries, can be first,
second and even third worlds all within one…
whereas here in the US, Canada and much of Europe,
we consider ourselves first world.

Perhaps we should consider the land mass of each of these countries.
In Russia there are 11 different time zones compared to our 6..
yet oddly France claims 13 given their country proper along
with their sovereign lands.

It is an odd conundrum.
Land mass equating to first, second and third worlds.

So whereas there were once men who were determined to defend and protect
the freedoms of not only their first worlds but that of all worlds…
A globe where the chance for freedom for all worlds, no matter their “status”,
could be attainable.

Yet sadly we find very few who are now willing to defend and protect
those very freedoms…freedoms for all of our worlds…
freedoms that men, only 80 years ago and less, were readily willing to die for.

It appears that the agenda of both democracy and the freedom has gravely shifted.

So—let’s ask some of our older citizens or those now citizens who have immigrated
from the 2nd and 3rd world nations…
Are we more free, safer and secure under our current leadership than we were
80 yers ago?

I think I know the answer…

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free.
But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh;
rather, serve one another humbly in love.

Galatians 5:13

25 comments on “the various degrees of a world…safer or less safe…

  1. K.L. Hale says:

    Wow. This is so intriguing and interesting, Julie. I often think about our first world problems and third world countries just as I think about how our ego, sadly, in this country, makes us tone-deaf to the true struggles of humanity. Second world countries~how interesting. Immediately my mind went to being “in the middle” road~to everything. We are extremists to a fault (not everyone). And isn’t it interesting that we don’t see the big picture as Christ followers as well? For safety means taking care of our “own” ~our own country, our own needs, etc… I took my sons to Fulton to the Westminster College where Churchill have his famous Iron Curtain speech. As we divide ourselves here the safety seems at risk. Thank you for this thought-provoking and wise post!

  2. Doug says:

    What’s been interesting to follow in your blog has been the recent palaver regarding WW2 generals and leaders, and a general admiration that somehow we long for that kind of imagery in a leader, someone we can put our trust in, the assertive and forthright and confident warriors that we could rally behind toward the common, unified cause.
    We might keep in perspective that those fellows did in fact have their own detractors in their day for various reasons… and they had their own personal foibles that often got in the way of their actions. In the end they were all as human as any of us.
    The reason we don’t have leaders like that “anymore” is simply because our divisiveness will not permit it… and the causes that made those other leaders popular are far less unified or defined. Our “problems” at this point in time are a culmination of a broad range of domestic threats internal and external… including natural. There is also one other element “they” had that we do not.. yet. A unified urgency to WANT leadership like that. We simply are not desperate enough. They had a world where a couple nations simply wanted to conquer and oppress everyone. Their threat was perceived immediate. Also, technology as it exists today was not “in the way” of their existence.

    You asked… “Are we more free, safer and secure under our current leadership than we were
    80 years ago?”

    That’s not the question to ask. Rather for us in the here-and-now.. how do we define “being free”, “being safer”, and “being secure”, in order to make the comparison? I am positive that we have 350 million different definitions.

    • Doug, I’ve told you before I think most of us of a certain age know all too well of the “foibles” that many of these past particular ‘leaders’ had— but as I said before- these men knew how chain of command worked- I written many times how a dogged determined Churchill and his ancient island nation was all that stood between us and Hitler— and it was Churchill who warned us about Stalin’s real interests— I felt we were safer then— even in world conflict, then we are now—because back then, at least we knew the good guys from the bad

      • Doug says:

        Patton diverted.. or “skirted”.. from chain of command a number of times in his career. Like when he sent that ill-fated side rescue mission to free his son-in-law from a prison camp.. and that craziness back when he was running the post-war Czechs in trying to build up a captured German military.. ex-SS in fact, have a war against the Soviets while we were all in a position to do so. MacArthur’s defiance of Truman in striking beyond the Yalu River. The list goes on as the people do. That’s not to suggest in the least their contribution at the time was not valuable toward achieving the goals. Leader “heroes” tend to have egos and a self-confidence in what they are doing as being for a higher purpose, and often that they think they know better than the next guy… and sometimes they actually do.
        I’m guessing all this has to do with Milley.. and your objection to what he did in questioning your guy Trump when your guy was going off the rails. Hope you watched his testimony.

      • Doug, I know all about Patton and his one man army ego— I also know when the crap hit the fan and they had to pull him in and down that he took, albeit most begrudgingly, command of The Ghost division— the ballon blow ups of tanks and card board planes so the Germans would be fooled in to thinking that the allies were en massing south of Normandy— and it just happened to work.
        Milley and company have a great deal to learn— gossiping to journalists writing scintillating books is one such lesson

  3. Tricia says:

    We have so many first world problems here that aren’t really problems as you eloquently point out. Many folks don’t know their history and only look at today’s issues to be solved without grasping the larger picture on how most government “solutions” end up dampening freedom and usually making the problem worse.

    Society doesn’t crave good leaders because it’s consumed with personal safety which requires enormous government control to address.

  4. How wonderful. I never thought of “second world” countries before. Our problems are clearly ones of evil leaders taking away our freedoms. Yet, there are many other important issues being faced all around the world.

    Blessings from mighty King Jesus.

  5. oneta hayes says:

    I’m still learning from your research. Thanks.

  6. SLIMJIM says:

    Good discussion about 2nd world countries…which I think our West conveniently don’t talk about

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.