EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Banality of Evil Revisited
Hannah Arendt was exactly right in 1963 when she had an epiphany while writing about Adolph Eichmann, realizing in a profound moment of clarity that the great evils in the world are not the work of a few sociopaths, but are committed by ordinary people who accept what they are told by their government and then proceed to normalize whatever actions they might take. Sadly, under the right circumstances, we are easily persuaded to do the bidding of the state when it comes to killing.
Six years ago we were rabid for revenge and war making. Many thought that killing bin Laden and his protectors, the Taliban, would settle the score for the attack on our country. However, the President and his men wanted a wider battle, so they used lies and propaganda to sell a war with Iraq. Through the power and resources of the state, war making with Iraq was promoted as honorable, clergy gathered to anoint it a just cause, and most people accepted without question what they were being told. They responded with the shameful flag waving and nationalism that masqueraded as patriotism. Those that urged restraint and voiced opposition to the war were savaged as traitors.
But after five years, support for the war has plummeted, because the war people got was not the one they were sold. People believed, like Bush, it would be a war on the cheap, quick, requiring no sacrifice or human cost, a real feel good kind of war. But it has been anything but cheap. In seeking to atone for being bamboozled by Bush they recently elected enough Democrats to cut off funding and end the war. But they got fooled again. Ironically, the Democrats would rather appear weak and helpless when dealing with Bush so as not to appear weak and helpless on war making. In response, many people feel resigned to continue what appears to be a never-ending war. They have moved on in their lives choosing to ignore the atrocities committed in their names.
Over time the normalization of behaviors even extends to officers of the state who had a hand in promoting the war. Nowhere was that more on display this week than during the congressional hearings on Iraq. In the dulcet tones of civility, men and women went about carrying out their state duties in hearings ostensibly designed to find out some truth about a monstrous war. Far removed from the carnage they have created in Iraq and the stench of rotting bodies, they calmly chatted about the minutiae of their war. With no display or even any sense of outrage they quietly listened as the General smoothed over any rough edges that might cause them to lose the least little bit of sleep in their comfortable beds at night.
The only bit of reality and dignity that was interjected into any of the hearings were the shouts from the anti-war protestors who were quickly silenced when they were removed from the room. Their truth is that we murdered a lot of people, destroyed a country for nothing, and have created more hatred and animosity in the world that will surely come back like a rushing tide and wash over us in the years to come. But that reality does not exist within the vocabulary of the state and our elected representatives were careful not to stray from their script.
Two days after the hearings ended, President Bush, propped up in the background by the symbols of state, spoke to the nation. Like Eichmann, the consummate bureaucrat carrying out his duties, Bush too demonstrated once again that he lacks the necessary imagination to understand the morality of what he is doing and the human costs involved. Weeks earlier, in another carefully staged event, Bush spoke to a national VFW convention full of old men. He led them in cheering the war and as such the slaughter and maiming of the next generation of young servicemen and women. Just last week we learned that he told the Australian prime minister that we were "kicking ass" in Iraq. Perhaps the best example of the banality of this man occurred during a recent interview with his biographer. When asked what he will do when he leaves office he responded, without the least sense of shame, that he was interested in making money to replenish his coffers that had been depleted during his years in office.
However, Bush is only a co-conspirator in this ongoing drama along with the plotters and planners, the technicians and bureaucrats, the generals and soldiers who all go about their daily duties unfazed by the consequences of their actions doing just what they are told to do. Meanwhile our elected officials sit in leather bound chairs pontificating about trivia. They wonder aloud whether or not troop levels should be reduced by a few thousand soldiers over the next year, all the while raiding the treasury to continue funding this immoral war. Even John Boehner, the house minority leader, dismissed the bloodletting and human carnage as insignificant to the greater mission of the state.
And what about the rest of us, those who championed this war from the outset and those of us who knew better? What is our responsibility for this evil? Decades from now will our grandchildren wonder how we could have allowed this carnage and will they question why we stood by and did nothing?
Bud McClure is a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota Duluth and can be emailed at bmcclure@d.umn.edu.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



80 Comments so far
Show AllBeing physically disabled has lent to my vulnerable continuity.
I learned a long time ago that praying alone didn't give me the wisdom I needed to rise above my personal obstacles. I felt betrayed by religious institutions once I became aware of that fact. Divination of any form is strickly forbidden by religious institutions. In doing so one is actually discouraged from developing a spiritual relationship which leads people to be lost without his or her most important source of support (love) and guidance; which is why people are easily controlled. People are sinners (unworthy) and are taught to fear God. Talk about abuse, pfft!
When the government manipulates the mind (schools), and religious institutions the heart.....I have a very clear understanding why evil has taken control of this country.
Joseph Goebelles was right. If you tell many successful small lies, the people overlook the big lies.
How soon do we get to hear US military commanders say 'I was only following orders'?
This fiasco could only be created and prolonged because American culture itself has been reduced to a gross banality. Americans are not so much "citizens" as they are corpulent consumers whose only social function is to shop and spend, thus keeping the corporate culture alive and well...and so totally banal.
"American culture itself has been reduced to a gross banality. Americans are not so much "citizens" as they are corpulent consumers whose only social function is to shop and spend"
The more corpulent consumers are generally the poorer part of the population; the cheapest foods are the worst foods nutritionally.
The only physical commons currently existing are shopping malls; an important part of the reduction of citizenry to consumption has been the attack on & neglect of public spaces. Those cities that still maintain them are all more progressive.
Well, OK. Another rehash of the circumstances leading to our debacle in Iraq, more Bush-bashing. Not that he doesn't deserve it, but how many times do we need to play this record? The important issue is what do we do going forward? None of the rhetoric I have heard coming from the left makes a persuasive case in that regard.
No matter how much we bash Bush, no matter how "brain dead" we say he is, the fact is that he and his "neocon" buddies have been extraordinarily successful in outflanking the left on every turn. No president in my memory, and I have been around almost 65 years, has been more successful in persuing his agenda and doing pretty much exactly what he wants to do. Now we see it happening again, as the administration's carefully coordinated media blitz on the war in Iraq has successfully, or at least plausably to many Americans, presented the "surge" as a success, and created conditions that will assure the continuation of the war until Bush leaves office.
Now we see the democrat candidates scrambling for cover once again. MoveOn.Org put its foot in its mouth, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, and the right has had a field day with them and Hillary's "suspension of disbelief" statement. But the real concern for the left must be this: What if conditions in Iraq do improve substantially in the next 12 months? What if the Iraqis do rise up against the violence, as they have in some areas, work with the Americans against terrorists of all stripes, begin to rebuild thier country and take substantial control of security, either as localized police forces or through much improved national security forces? Where does that leave the democratic candidates, who are staking everything on what seems to be America's failure in Iraq?
The absolutely worst thing that could happen to America, in my view, is another republican-dominated congress and an ultra-conservative president that would continue and expand the policies of the Bush government, both internationally and domestically. The issues we are facing - global warming, energy, health care, security and personal freedom, religious freedom (separation of church and state), Social Security, immigration, the economy and the potential for economic meltdown, and many
other issues demand that we have a president and congress that will defend our constitutional freedoms and work for the welfare of all Americans and restore American prestige in the world.
I think it is very possible that the situation in Iraq will improve, at least marginally. As an American, I hope that does happen. I also believe that the republicans will continue to frame the issues in terms that will persuade many that the positions of the left are wrong. For reasons I don't understand, liberals have been unable to find a way to present thier values and viewpoints in ways that are more compelling than what I believe are the selfish, ugly, immoral, and un-Christian views of the right. I believe it is even money, right now, that the republicans will successfully retain the presidency and possibly even regain a majority in the senate. It all depends on what happens in Iraq. This demands that the left think seriously about thier position on Iraq. With no coherent plan that seriously addresses all of the issues in the region, we continue to look pretty feckless. If the war turns in America's favor, many on the left are going to look pretty rediculous.
Do you really think it is possible for the situation in Iraq to turn in the USAs favor? Or anyone else's for that matter?
Dang Meg you said the same thing i was going to say. Really. War? Favor?
Spare me that sort of nonsense.
The offenders will suffer the consequences. Don't you think?
Peace,
Ken Hausle
"Through the power and resources of the state, war making with Iraq was promoted as honorable, clergy gathered to anoint it a just cause, and most people accepted without question what they were being told."
Most people? Zobgy, a week before the illegal invasion:
"A new poll by Zogby International shows that American public support for war against Iraq is now at 54%, a drop of 4 points from two weeks ago. Meanwhile, opposition to the war is up to 41%, an increase of 4 points."
And 34% of the "supporters" were "somewhat" supportive.
Most?
The Rabid Right
Is it getting to the point that you feel leery about reading some of the stories you see nowadays? Stories like how Nine Billion Dollars in cash disappeared in Iraq. Or 9/11 Conspiracy Theories sounding more plausible as suppressed evidence emerges. What about those Secrecy Laws passed not to protect secrecy, but crime? Global warming being denied as we watch it happening.
Are you a little disillusioned by some of the stuff you are learning about our government, our leaders, our beliefs and conceits? Has your confidence been shaken, are you feeling betrayed by a system, and leaders who support that system, no matter how irrational it is.
You're just one person, and you can't do anything about anything anyway, so maybe we're better off not knowing some things: like, the system is downright insane.
What do you call a system of government based on bribes? Plutocracy?
Who could have imagined that George Bush planned to become dictator? We watched day by day as he grabbed more and more power, while damn few voiced an objection. It often seems as if none of our representatives had a plan besides grab the money and run. In spite of that though, it turns out that the Rabid Right did have a plan, more like a plot to violate the law, shred the Constitution and dismantle democracy.
That's depressing stuff.
Maybe we expected too much from the people we elected, maybe you can't trust anyone unconditionally. Truth can be distressing, but it beats dying in ignorance.
.
Historical lessons, current events, and rational interpretation of intellegence have normally precluded egotism & theocracy for major decisions in our republic. Unfortunately, this is not the case now.
The current administration is manipulated by ego, the energy cartel,& the radical religious right wing to extents never before experienced in our history. The ill conceived invasion of Iraq, the plans to provide arms to some Middle East Countries, current suggestion to invade Iran, & the dreadful war on our environment are only some examples.
Unless Americans begin reacting to logic rather than rhetoric, and take back our country from this illegally placed administration now, the rights that we have enjoyed for two centuries may evaporate--and Americans we can blame themselves for this
Excellent article Professor and those old guys at the vfw gives the lie to the saying that with age comes wisdom.I'm 71 and they are a shame. Tony
Blow-Back equals
America's preordained Destiny equals
Bu$hCo's Machiavellian, malodorous and mirthless LEGACY....
There, that's mordantly onomatopoetic....
it is appropriate that the nazi regime keeps coming up when discussing bushco.
two birds of the same feather. both used false flag events in exactly the same way.
terrorize the public, get a war going and stifle the citizens at home. turn the government into quivering guava jelly.
it is video replay at its best and we - the us citizenry - are playing our part to a t.
patriot act, habeas corpus, torture.....
Naomi Klein has a great new book on shock therapy as used in politics, economics (remember the little madman freidman) and war, check it out:
http://www.naomiklein.org/
there are many similarities between the nazis and bushco, but let's keep a good thought in remembering that hitler died, alone in a bunker, in the destroyed city of berlin, in the destroyed city of germany, only ten years into what he thought was the 1,000 year reich.
the ironic historical twist is that the nazis went after the jews and today the jewish lobby/fascist/racist state is driving the american governemnt into the war with iran. to them iraq is a sidebar at best.
certainly the israeli government has shown that it has learned well its lessons about holocaust - look at their treatment of the palestinains.
they are proud students indeed!
the question for the americans is: when did you cede control of the governemtn to the jewish lobby?
and then today alan greenspan, in his much anticipated memoirs states that the reason for going into iraq was to get the oil.
finally a shred of truth in the media.
let bushco spin that
greenspan says: its unfortunate that we cannot say the truth which "everyone knows"
unfortunately there are a couple of hundred million americans idiots who are too stupid to know alan. and that is regrettable.
Yes, absolutely true: "the great evils in the world are not the work of a few sociopaths, but are committed by ordinary people who accept what they are told by their government and then precede to normalize whatever actions they might take."
All of us tax paying Americans have (and are) financially supporting the USA's invasion and occupation.
The prosecution of prominent members of the political, military and economic leadership of the post 9-11 USA (like the Nuremberg trials) is essentional. It might take a few years, but it must happen. The freedom and prestige of such deadly and hurtful people in our society is a mockery of justice.
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General has been calling for the impeachment of the biggest war criminals for many moons.
http://www.impeachbush.org
-------------------------------
Give peace a chance!
http://www.dennis4president.com/home/
————–
CIO:
http://www.freehugscampaign.org/
Gee, Mr McClure, do you really think our grandchildren are going to wonder how we could have allowed the Iraq Quagmire to continue?
Won't they have a lot of wondering to do?
Wondering how our fathers could have allowed Vietnam and Cambodia?
Our grandfathers could have allowed the terror-bombing of Germany and Japan?
Our greatgrandfathers could have allowed the invasions of the Phillippines and Cuba?
Our great-greatgrandfathers could have allowed the genocide of the plains Indians?
Maybe by that time Americans will have acknowledged, Mr McClure, that the United States of America has been for a very long time an imperial power, based on force, and employing mendacious rhetoric about "freedom" in order to swindle its citizens to support its imperial pretentions.
I doubt they'll wonder much. They'll be too busy fighting their own imperial wars.
mmeo:
touche!
well spoken.
Hey mmeo...
That's radical stuff for a mathematician! Exactly right, and well-written, too.
capt. clerariant's comment is also worth reading. As Lao-tzu used to say, "Destiny is always on the side of the good man."
Harharharhar!! (This crazy laughter doesn't make a lot more sense if you read capt. clevariant's comment first, but it's worth reading anyway.)
interesting view capt. even a leveling off of violence might be accepted by enough people to make iraq a non-issue with many people considering how uninformed i find many people to be outside of these threads (and even then i have read a few personally questionable opinions). i also would not be surprised of conservatism maitains a hold on policy execution mostly because even if a leading democratic party candidate wins election policy will remain the same. as most americans have passed through the same kinds of indoctrinations that help to form a pretty narrow consensus it is obvious that critical thought is discouraged. i find that the more progressive a person is the more analytical they are which leads to various opinions, less consensus and less common ground for agreement and organization. judeo/christian teaching and american history shows that, as mmeo posits, we have not seen the last of this type of policy.
"Six years ago we were rabid for revenge and war making. Many thought that killing bin Laden and his protectors, the Taliban, would settle the score for the attack on our country."
Objection!
Assumes (by implication that Osama & Company were the ones who did the attacking)facts not in evidence.
There's as much solid evidence against the Easter Bunny as there is against Osama bin Laden. And there's one hell of a lot of evidence that the murderous SOB's who pulled of the WTC attack WEREN'T out-of-towners.
Beware of this sort of assumption. It's a fundamental propaganda trick to casually imbed that kind of disinformation in a piece with which the target audience will be in basic agreement, thus facilitating, by asssociation, their acceptance of the disinformation as true.
Liberty & Justice,
SJ
www.spartacusjones.com
mmeo.....totally agreed. What do we tell them?
One small quibble with the article: it should be "dulcet" tones....not dulcimer tones. You know...smooth, pleasant, soothing. Although, given the way this group (Dems and Reps alike) continues to disappoint, maybe dulcimer tones would be an improvement.
People in the US of A will support anything as long as they feel themselves winner.
Now that the USA has lost another war, will it not again turn on the sensible people that cautioned against war and make them the scapegoat for this lost war?
Dr. Zimmerman Robert - In past times perhaps. But now, with everything else that is going on, i don't think turning on the "sensible [P]eople" is an option. If it is tried, it will be forcefully rebuked.
And then, the sensible People will prevail, or at least, it seems that way to me.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
"the fact is that he and his "neocon" buddies have been extraordinarily successful in outflanking the left on every turn."
You mean Clintonites, formerly known as the Democratic Party? Not exactly "left", except in neocon & murderstream media parlance.
". But the real concern for the left must be this: What if conditions in Iraq do improve substantially in the next 12 months? What if the Iraqis do rise up against the violence, as they have in some areas, work with the Americans against terrorists of all stripes, begin to rebuild thier country and take substantial control of security, either as localized police forces or through much improved national security forces? Where does that leave the democratic candidates, who are staking everything on what seems to be America's failure in Iraq?"
And they would "work with the Americans against terrorists of all stripes" because . . .
The American forces ARE the terrorists. In the 'successful' province, the vast majority hate Americans & wish they would leave.
This is the sort of Invisible Pink Unicorn scenario one has become accustomed to from the DLC aka Democrats for Nixon aka Joe Llieberman camp.
Bring On The Lucie (Freda People)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sMnP3u4qEk
We don?t care what flag you?re waving
We don?t even want to know your name
We don?t care where you?re from or where you?re going
All we know is that you came
You?re making all our desicions
We have just one request of you
That while you?re thinking things over
Here?s something you just better do
Free the people now
Do it do it do it now
Well we were caught with our hands in the air
Don?t desapir paranoia is everywhere
We can shake it with love when we?re scared
So let?s shout it aloud like a prayer
We understand your paranoia
But we don?t want to play your game
You think you?re cool and know what you are doing
666 is your name
So while you?re jerking off each other
You better bear this thought in mind
Your time is up you better know it
But maybe you don?t read the signs
Well you were caught with your hands in the kill
And you still got to swallow your pill
As you slip and you slide down the hill
On the blood of the people you killed
Stop the killing now
Do it do it do it now
Bring on the Lucie
Let there be Peace on Earth and Let it begin with me.....
When the first Gulf war was pushed out by Bu$h the pukey it was a real conversation killer when I said that we should have just written a nasty letter to Saddam.
I explained that the people of Kuwait would be about as well off under Saddam as they were under the government of Kuwait. I was appalled that we put that sick repressive regime back in power.
Little did I know that we would expand the worst possible government to include Iraq. IT IS ALWAYS A MISTAKE TO UNDERESTIMATE EVIL.
Thanks, Bud. I always appreciate the clarity of your vision.
(For anyone interested, McClure's book - Putting a New Spin on Groups - contains some very interesting material on "regressive groups" ---- on the mechanics of how groups of people de-volve into actions and attitudes we might describe as "evil").
***
Meanwhile, the "evil" we're talking about here actually may be just a tad bigger than most of us realize.
Something rotten in Denmark…??
1) Experienced U.S. Pilots Provide Answers as to Planes' Crash into Buildings
In the days following 9/11, a private group of US military & civilian pilots held a seminar to evaluate this crucial feature of the official story. Could the hijackers have flown those jets with pin-point accuracy? Their findings: "The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command,communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missles and in the co-ordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets."
One of the organizers of the seminar, retired Colonel Donn de Grand-pre, said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a complicated operation, which obviously had, as a prerequisite military precision of the highest order.
Another was a U.S. Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam War. He concluded that " Those birds either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control."
- Webster G. Tarpley,
9/11: Synthetic Terror Made in USA (2005)
———————–
US Fighter Pilot Looks Back at the Scrambling of Fighter Jets on 9/11
"…If normal communication and common sense action had taken place between the airlines,air-traffic control,FAA,NORAD and the interceptor bases, the interceptors would have arrived in time to save both the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with many minutes to spare. So while I concluded that the fighter pilots themselves were not culpable,somebody was. The question is,who was it?
One clue is that in June of 2001, just 3 months before 9/11, a new directive came out at the Pentagon and it stated that all requests to NORAD for intercepting hijacked airliners had to be approved by the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld)…"
–Dr. Robert M. Bowman,"Some Dare Call it Treason",
excerpt from his Presentation to the Intl. Citizens' Inquiry Into 9/11,
Toronto,Canada,
May 30,2004.
—Dr. Robert M. Bowman is President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies, Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation, and Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church. Culminating a 22-year Air Force career in 1978, Col. Bowman was Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the Air Force Space Division.
———————————————–
2) Trading skyrocketed in options that bet on a drop in UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. stock in the days before terrorists crashed hijacked United and American airlines jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the 110-story 2 World Trade Center, and Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the destroyed twin towers, also experienced pre- attack trading of 12 times to more than 25 times the usual volume in so-called put options that profit when stock prices fall, according to Bloomberg data.
Now, securities regulators in the U.S., Germany, Japan and Hong Kong say they are investigating whether terrorists raised money from insider trading on their knowledge of attacks that devastated New York's financial district and closed U.S. stock markets for four days…. Some airline, insurance, and brokerage stocks had jumps in the days before the Sept. 11 attack in so-called put options, which profit when a company's shares fall.
One day before two American Airlines jets were hijacked and crashed, for example, 1,535 contracts changed hands on options that let investors profit if AMR stock falls below $30 per share before Oct. 20. That was almost five times the total number of those October $30 put options traded before Sept. 10, according to Bloomberg data. AMR shares fell $11.70 today to $18.."
- Bloomberg Financial News,Sept.18,2001 http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-unusualtrading.html
Marcy Gordon, "Pre-attack trading probed", Associated Press, October 3, 2001
—- http://www.detnews.com/2001/business/0110/03/b03-308879.htm
Material above (and more) can be found at:
www.canadianactionparty.ca/cgi
"I was only following orders"
from g. bush?
THOU SHALT NOT KILL..from God.
damien
Although I am not a student of Hebrew texts I have read enough to conclude that if you are quoting from the "Good Book" the correct translation into English would be something more like: "Thou shalt commit no murder" rather than "Thou shalt not kill".
I believe the meaning of the Hebrew word used in the original Hebrew text means "murder" not "kill" for the following reasons.
By a study of which word is used in which context scholars concluded that the word for "kill" used in the Ten Commandments is not the same word as is used for killing such as in legally sanctioned killings like executions and warfare, or for killing animals or for God killing someone. However it is the same word for "kill" used when the context is clearly about a murder. Therefore the more accurate translation would be: "You must not murder anyone"
Now I might prefer to have God banning all killing such as in warfare and excecutions etc but I can't honestly claim that that is what the writers of those early texts had actually written.
.
People wanted to get rid of Saddam. That little fact is the leverage that despots use to manipulate and mislead. At the heart of it, the American people wanted to be rid of Saddam....period. We whine and complain, but the truth is, the heart of darkness is within us all.
The basic premise of this article, that the evil perpetrated in our names is normalized in the popular mind, is unassailable, in my opinion. And so it has always been. But would it really matter if evil were not meekly accepted by the masses? The answer may be less obvious than one would think.
The so-called "will of the people" is totally irrelevant to those holding the reins of power. Democracy, to them, is little more than a useful word, employed primarily to sustain the illusion that the citizenry actually have a say in how the country is governed. Even the supposed opposition party, the Democrats, are generally complicit in the crimes that are being committed before their very eyes. In all likelihood, nothing short of a complete transformation of the political system could alter the course of events at this point.
There can be little doubt that the American Empire is crumbling. Sadly, it will cause incalculable harm to so many undeserving victims as it falls.
In the tradition of the Onion. Hava laff:
http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/cheneydead.html
The nation's air defense systems was technically shut down on September 11th, allowing the four hijacked planes to fly into various targets. This could only be accomplished from the inside and at a very high level. Who gave that order? Speakers and writers use the reference "We" when addressing the government's actions? News flash, it ain't "We" or even us. "We" did not attack Iraq, or decommision NORAD, and the FAA, We did not use the military for political reasons, We did not create Blackwater a private militay orginiztion indirectly funded by the US Treasury, We did not elect GWB as the president of the US. "We" should start referring to the institutions, groups and individuals that created and promote the "Clash of Civilizations" culture by their names. They like to boast about how open and harmless they are, so they shouldn't mind the attention. Who are they, Neo-Cons? Nah, we can do better than that. Consider KBR (Kellog, Brown and Root), aka Haliburton. The Brown company was kicked out of Germany in the late 1800s. The Germans were not so keen on thier thirst for war. No mattter, they found some sleeply little country called the United States of America where they could practice business as usual with little if any interfrence. Which is what they did while enjoying profits from WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq1 and 2. (ref "America's Secret Establishment", Anthiny C Sutton) Who knows what's next. Umm...Iran, Syria, France maybe? To get even more specific as to who "We" is or "They" are. Take a look at his article some of their names are mentioned http://www.crookedtimber.org/2007/08/12/kristol-kagan-and-conservative-foreign-policy/
The Ignorance or How we produce the Evil
By Alice Miller
Today there can be no possible doubt that evil exists and that there are people who are capable of extremely destructive behavior. Any lingering doubts on this score will be swept away by an evening spent in front of the television. But the fact this is so is no confirmation of the widespread assertion that there are people who are born evil. On the contrary. The deciding factor is the reception they were given when they came into the world and the way they were treated later. Of course they have the genetic blueprint they inherited from their parents, and it may determine what kind of temperament a child will have, what inclinations, gifts, predispositions, but character depends crucially upon what a person is offered soon after his birth and over the first years of life.
Children who are given love, respect, understanding, kindness, and warmth will naturally develop different characteristics from those who experience neglect, contempt, violence or abuse, and never have anyone they can turn to for kindness and affection. Such absence of trust and love is a common denominator in the formative years of all the dictators I have studied. The result is that these children will tend to glorify the violence inflicted upon them and later to take advantage of every possible opportunity to exercise such violence, possibly on a gigantic scale. Children learn by imitation. Their bodies do not learn what we try to instill in them by words but what they have experienced physically. Battered, injured children will learn to batter and injure others; sheltered, respected children will learn to respect and protect those weaker than themselves. Children have nothing else to go on but their own experiences.
Born innocent
The well-known American pediatrician Dr. Brazelton once filmed a group of mothers holding and feeding their babies, each in her own particular way. More than 20 years later he repeated the experiment with the women those babies had grown into and who now had babies themselves. Astoundingly, they all held their babies in exactly the same way as they had been held by their mothers, although of course they had no conscious memories from those early years. One of the things Braselton proved with this experiment was that we are influenced in our behavior by our unconscious memories. And those memories can be life affirming and affectionate or traumatic and destructive.
In the 1970s the French gynecologist Frédéric Leboyer demonstrated that babies delivered without physical force and given a loving reception by their immediate environment show no signs of desperate crying or any kind of destructiveness. In fact they will even smile only a few minutes after birth. As long as they are not separated after birth, as was the custom in the 1950s, mother and child will develop a relationship of trust that will have positive repercussions on the entire further course of the children's lives. In the physical presence of her baby, the mother will produce the so-called love hormone (oxytocin) enabling her intuitively to understand the signals emitted by the child and to care for its needs by a process of empathy. These phenomena are described by Michel Odent in his latest book ("The Scientification of Love", London, Free Association, 1999).
Why have these important, groundbreaking insights on human nature failed to penetrate into the awareness of the public at large? True, the works of Leboyer have changed the face of birthing practices. But the philosophical, sociological, psychological, and ultimately theological implications of his discovery of the innocent newborn do not appear to have left any mark on society as a whole. We can see this in many areas: in schools, the penal system, and politics. All these areas are dominated by the notion that punishment - and notably the corporal punishment that goes by the name of "correction" - is effective and harmless. There is little awareness of the fact that physical punishment actually creates the evil that we later try - more or less ineffectually - to banish by inflicting more of the same.
Evil is born anew with every new generation
In the Middle Ages there was a widespread belief in "changelings." The term referred to children of the devil smuggled into ordinary, well-meaning mothers' cradles in exchange for the babies they had actually brought into the world. Though there is no indication whom the devil is supposed to have sired these wicked, diabolical children on, or what he did with the good ones he spirited away, the fact is that mothers of so-called changelings were instructed to bring those children up with especial strictness, meaning that they should beat them black and blue at the slightest sign of recalcitrance as this was the only hope of molding them into human beings worthy of the name. Though we no longer believe in changelings today, the belief in the effectiveness of corporal punishment, the idea that we can "beat some sense" into rebellious children, appears to be unshakable in the minds of most people. Even Sigmund Freud believed that a sadist takes pleasure in tormenting others because he has been unable to adequately sublimate the death instinct we are allegedly all born with. Genetics provides an "updated" version of the idea of innate evil. It is frequently asserted that there are genes that drive some people to commit evil deeds even if they have had "lots of love" in their childhood. I have yet to come across such an individual. All the childhood histories of serial killers and dictators I have examined showed them without exception to have been the victims of extreme cruelty, although they themselves steadfastly denied this. And in this they are not alone. Large sections of society are apparently determined either to deny or to ignore these facts. Taken to its logical conclusion, this genetic theory ought to be able to explain why, 30 years before the advent of the Third Reich, Germany should have brought forth millions of children whose genetic make-up was so badly contaminated that in adulthood they were ready and willing to lend themselves to Hitler's atrocities without turning a hair. Why has there never been such an accumulation of rogue genes in Germany before or since? It is a question I have asked repeatedly and I have never received an answer. The reason is simple. There is no answer. Hitler's henchmen were victims of their upbringing. They belonged to a generation of children who had been exposed to brutal physical correction and humiliation and who later vented their pent-up feelings of anger and helpless rage on innocent victims. Safe in the knowledge that they were doing so with the Führer's blessing, they were finally able to give free rein to those feelings without risk of punishment. Today children are brought up very differently in Germany. But wherever cruelty and humiliation still plays a part in parenting, those methods are faithfully reflected in the behavior of young people denying the pain of the humiliation they have been through, selecting and attacking scapegoats, and advancing harebrained ideological reasons for their depredations. The gene theory is just as incapable of explaining evil as the changeling legend or the death instinct. According to statistical surveys (see Olivier Maurel, La Fessée, La Plage, 2001) 90% of the people alive today believe that children need a "good" smacking from time to time if anything is to come of them. The truth is very different, and it is high time we faced up to it. Evil exists. But it is not something that some people are born with. It is produced by society, every day, every hour, unceasingly, all over the world. It starts with the treatment meted out to newborn babies and carries on in the parenting methods practiced on small children. Such children may BECOME criminal at a later stage, if they have no helping witness to turn to. In their childhood years, serial killers and dictators all have one thing in common: they had no such witnesses to turn to for help.
Dictators and the dynamics of cruelty
Every dictator torments his people in the same way he was tormented as a child. The humiliations inflicted on these dictators in adult life had nothing like the same influence on their actions as the emotional experiences they went through in their early years. Those years are "formative" in the truest sense: in this period the brain records or "encodes" emotions without (usually) being able to recall them at will. As almost every dictator denies his sufferings (his former total helplessness in the face of brutality) there is no way that he can truly come to terms with them. Instead he will have a limitless craving for scapegoats on whom he can avenge himself for the fears and anxieties of childhood without having to re-experience those fears. Here are some examples.
Adolf Hitler's father Alois was an illegitimate child. He was suspected of being the son of a Jewish merchant from Graz because his mother, Maria Schickelgruber, became pregnant when she was in his domestic employ. The suspicion was not easy to disprove because Adolf Hitler's grandmother received alimony from the merchant for a period of 14 years. Alois must have suffered greatly from this social stigma; the fact that his name was so often changed (Heidler, Hydler, etc.) is a clear indication of the fact. For him, the opprobrium of being both illegitimate and of Jewish descent was a source of unbearable shame. But there was no way he could rid himself of this humiliation. The easiest way for him to vent his pent-up resentment was to take it out on his son Adolf in the form of regular, merciless floggings. I have given a detailed account of this in my book "For Your Own Good" and I return to it in my two latest books "Paths of Life", Pantheon, 1999 and "The Truth Will Set You Free", Basic Books, 2001. In the entire history of anti-Semitism and persecution of the Jews, no other ruler had ever hit upon the idea that, on pain of death, every citizen in his country must provide proof of non-Jewish descent extending back to the third generation. This was Hitler's OWN PERSONAL BRAND OF MANIA. And it is traceable to the insecurity of his existence in his own family, the insecurity of a child constantly living under the threat of violence and humiliation. Later millions were to forfeit their lives so that this child - now a childless adult - could avenge himself by unconsciously projecting the grim scenario of his childhood onto the political stage. We have an instinctive reluctance when it comes to acknowledging that the activity of our bodily and emotional memory is independent of our consciousness. This is understandable, not only because these insights are new and unaccustomed but above all because we have no control over the way that memory operates. But accepting the existence of these phenomena can in fact improve the control we have over their effects and afford better protection against them. The average mother who gives her child an "involuntary" smack will not be aware of the fact that the reason she does so is that her body and its memories are prompting her to. (Mothers not beaten as children do not normally slap their children "involuntarily.") But if she knows the reason, she will be better able to cope with it. Her self-control will be greater and she will spare both herself and her child the suffering that comes from such treatment.
Like Hitler, Stalin was exposed to immense brutality as a child and had no helping witness to turn to. He did not know that it was his body memory that forced him to play out his own childhood tragedy on the stage of the Soviet Union. Had he known, he would have been better able to control his unconscious anxieties, and millions would have been spared. If this knowledge had been in general currency at the time, the governments of the world might have devised suitable strategies over the last 50 years to prevent the dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of one person for the purpose of reducing their personal childhood traumas to silence. Very little has been done in this connection. Stalin was an only child. Like Hitler he was the first child to survive after three siblings who had died in infancy. His irascible father was almost always drunk and laid into his son from an early age. Despite the fame and power he later achieved, Stalin suffered throughout his life from a persecution mania that drove him to order the killing of millions of innocent people. Just as the infant Stalin lived in fear of sudden death at the hands of his unpredictable father, so the adult Stalin lived in fear even of his closest associates. But now he had the power to fend off those fears by humiliating others.
Mao was the son of a "strict" teacher who attempted to instill obedience and wisdom in him by means of severe physical correction. We are only too familiar with the "wisdom" Mao set out to drum into the huge population of his country, naturally with the "best of intentions." The methods he used to do so cost the country 35 million lives. Ceaucescu grew up sharing a room with ten brothers and sisters. His delayed response to this was to force Romanian women to have unwanted children.
The examples are endless. Unfortunately we refuse to look these facts in the face. If we did, we might learn how hate comes about. And if we took its origins seriously we would be less prone to think that there is nothing we can do about it.
The roots of hate
Why are we so anxious to find innate evil tucked away in our genetic make-up? Quite simply because most of us were beaten when we were small and fear nothing so much as the revival of the pain caused by the humiliation we went through. At the same time, we were told that it was all for our own good. So we learned to suppress that pain. But the memory of those humiliating beatings was stored away in our brains and our bodies. We loved our parents, so we believed them when they told us it was for our own good. Most of us still believe it and go around asserting that one cannot bring up children without blows, slaps, and smacks - in other words, without resorting to humiliation. And then there is no way out of the vicious circle of violence and denial of the humiliation inflicted on them. The need for revenge, reprisal, punishment lives on within them. The rage suppressed in childhood is transformed into murderous hate. Religious and ethnic groups are only too willing to provide the ideologies justifying the cultivation and projection of that hate. Humiliation is a poison that is difficult to exterminate because it is used for extermination and the production of new humiliation that fuels the proliferation of violence and masks the underlying problems.
To get out of this vicious circle we must face up to our own truth. We WERE humiliated children, we WERE the victims of our parents' ignorance, the victims of their histories, of the unconscious scars their childhood left on them. We had no choice but to deny the truth. For a maltreated child, denying suffering is the only hope of survival in an unbearable situation.
But as adults we can break out of that mold. We don't need to spend all our lives playing down the pain involved and asserting that children need spanking. We can face up to our own history, recognize that hitting children is not only useless but actively dangerous. We can come to understand that it encourages hate and the desire for revenge, feelings that will be unleashed against ourselves and society as a whole if we remain imprisoned in our self-inflicted ignorance. Unlike children, we adults have other - and healthier - alternatives than denial. We can decide in favor of knowledge and awareness, rather than allowing ourselves to be driven by the emotional, unconscious knowledge stored in our bodies and the fear of the truth it instills in us. Maybe there is a little Stalin inside many of us. For all the infinite power at his command, he spent all his life in fear of his father and clinging to the "blessings" of denial. Like Hitler, he believed that the annihilation of millions of people would one day free him of the tormenting fear of his father. But it did not. Such illusions drive many former humiliated children into crime. Equipped with the knowledge we now have at our disposal, we can gradually espouse different ideas and solutions from the ones passed on to us in a thousand-year tradition of violence, punishment, retribution (and sustained by weakness, ignorance, and fear). Electing to remain bogged down in those inherited notions is tantamount to a refusal to learn from the facts we have at our disposal. Those facts are to be found not only in the biographies of mass murderers but also in the positive examples history has to offer. They too have been ignored for thousands of years.
Jesus and his parents
Jesus is worshipped by all Christian churches. He grew up in the company of parents who believed him to be the son of God. We may safely assume that they never hit him. Instead, they treated him with immense respect and gave him all their love. We know what this upbringing based on love, tolerance, and respect made out of him. He passed on to others what he received from his parents: sympathy, tolerance, love, respect. Why is it that in the subsequent 2,000 years no representative of the church modeled himself on Jesus' example? Why has the church never spoken out against corporal punishment for little children? The church preaches - and practices - charity, tolerance, and forgiveness for adults but expressly denies these blessings to children. Why were Jesus' parents never held up as an example to Christian believers? Why do Christian schools in Africa get up in arms when the republic of Comores sets out to prohibit physical correction for children in school? The reason given in the corresponding petition is that physical correction for pupils in school is a religious obligation. The only explanation there can be for this extreme psychological ignorance is that the adults involved stand in a tradition of power, reprisal, and revenge for denied humiliation. Unwittingly they are thus passing on this tradition to the coming generation.
Conclusions
Today the computer screen can actually show us the lesions inflicted on the brains of children by violence and neglect. Numerous articles by brain researchers inform us of the facts, not only in specialist journals but also on the internet. It is time to give up the denial. The mortal dangers many of us were exposed to in childhood are no longer there to threaten us. We no longer need to arm ourselves against something that happened long ago. The real hazards come from within, the risks involved in ignoring the knowledge stored in our bodies. Unawareness of the true motives behind our actions can be dangerous indeed, whereas knowledge of our own histories can free us from the urge to flee from past dangers, by using mindless and destructive strategies. Humiliating others can never be a genuine, lasting solution. All it does - in politics and parenting alike - is create new hotbeds of violence. Children who learn the methods of humiliation and menace from their parents will put that into practice in school. And, as a survey has shown, they learn it at the age of 18 months at the latest, that is, at a time when their brains are not yet fully formed. Hence the long-term impact of these lessons, this school of violence. By teaching infants violence and emotional ignorance (due to the necessary repression of pain) we constantly produce the Evil in the world. But with more knowledge we can decide to stop this production. Sweden did it 22 years ago by promulgating a law forbidding corporal punishments to children and some countries did already the same, with good results.
To believe that we can combat violence by using more violence is an obvious illusion cherished however for millennia and visible in the continuing production of weapons. Organizing wars rather helps avoiding the truth, at the cost of human lives, than to open our eyes and increase our insight. We are going to have to try a little harder than that: listening to ourselves, acknowledging our true motives and cultivating a sincere and respectful attitude, rather than believing in the protection of punitive, destructive power. Having the power to destroy doesn't mean being strong. Real strength means being able to understand our feelings and our history so that we become free to act from conscious motives instead of being driven by unconscious fears like Stalin, Hitler, and others. Though we may not have learned to trust respectful communication as children and to understand our feelings we can learn it in adulthood. Many have already succeeded in doing so. But many still think they don't even need to try. Thus they know near to nothing about themselves.
However, precisely with this knowledge are we able to make constructive decisions and to find effective solutions. The examples of Stalin and Hitlers show how dangerous it can become for millions if leaders of big countries don't know the true reasons of their decisions. In the ignorance of suffering endured in childhood lies the source of suffering inflicted to others. We can't change the past but we can give up our ignorance and - with time - the source will dry out.
I think that only by understanding the dynamics of hatred and by becoming aware of its roots, and not by using weapons, can we offer to the next generation real peace.
The problem with the "withdraw immediately" position is that it does not take any responsibility for the Country, Iraq, that we have helped wreck. Yes, this is Bush's greatest advantage--"we can't leave because of the mess I made." But that doesn't absolve our moral responsibility to the Iraqis.
A democratic withdrawal policy MUST include the United Nations and the other nations in the Mideast. Iraq is headed for a Yugoslavia type partition, there is no avoiding it, and we must do our best to minimize the bloodshed.
So far, United Nations forays into these kinds of conflicts have been barely better than failures, but we must do something.
Daniel Bell in his book 'The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism' describes how America went from a Puritan culture of scarcity and delayed gratification to a consumer culture of plenty and instant gratification. This occurred by the the three pronged advent of mass production, mass marketing and mass credit. It's ironic that the corporate culture that made the consumer culture possible is the same force that contributed to the demise of the puritan culture it has replaced. It is further perplexing the the unholy alliance between corporate America, so responsible for undermining the puritan religious culture, and the religious right is what brought the current republican party to power. This party,I think it is safe to say, is the party of the corporation. This consumer culture was celebrated by Bush when he told Americans that their obligation to support America was to go shopping.
To many Americans are, I think naive, devoted, and undereducated. They believe in violence as a legitimate first response to feeling threatened.They don't see a contradiction between the use of violence and at the same time professing a Christian faith. They see themselves as essentially good and consider their use of violence as having nothing to do with their inherent goodness. This allows us to murder in the name of justice. l like the news reports that declare the killing of thus and such number of suspected insurgents, or terrorists. Today we can kill people who are only suspected of a crime and announce
it on the news as proof of the effectiveness of our struggle against the enemy. We withdraw into our own private lives and are encouraged to do so. The trillions we spent on empire will surely bankrupt us.It has happened to every empire. The 'banality of evil' done in our names is underscored by the calculus of death that to date has killed 3800 more Americans(soldiers) maimed thousands more ,killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq,s people and is still being spoken about as honor, duty and county.
Bud, the word you were looking for there was "dulcet", not "dulcimer." The dulcimer is a musical instrument. It has a lot of tonal possibilities.
rtdrury, localism? Are you saying people should move out?
Kengarjagalouski,
There are many Alice Miller writings at:
http://www.nospank.net
Search for Alice Miller there.
Or use this link:
http://nospank.net/milindex.htm
I think her work is superb. One key book of her's is "For Your Own Good: Hidden cruelty in childrearing and the roots of violence" which I especially like.
I feel as though my son thinks I am insane because of the way I am. I think he thinks I am not in reality. As you well stated it is NOT this way in society, it isn't this way at school or even at a church or heaven forbid on a job. It has become worse and worse over the years. Just take a look at road rage...I never heard of such a thing 20 years ago, not to mention what has been taken place since 9/11.
I will admit that I am very secluded for that reason for I don't know too many people like myself and being that way makes it very difficult to survive especially in today's economy. I swear the only way I have been truly doing it is through the grace of God.
Io Q. Lellity:
thanks for the miller post..as an atheist i do not believe in evil, but can follow very well where abuse leads. i like very much this piece of writting--where did you find such??
ken
Yes indeed the fascists are "kicking ass" in Iraq. They're kicking ass on the Iraqi civilian population, over a million killed, kicking ass on US soldiers, 3900 killed, kicking ass on US taxpayers, 2 trillion dollar bill, kicking ass on the rule of law - descent into fascist tyranny, police state, kicking ass on the environment, flood, drought, asthma, cancer, kicking ass on US commuters, record oil profits for years, kicking ass on public sector efficiencies, doubling/tripling costs via privatization, kicking ass on civil rights - loss of privacy, etc, kicking ass on general public interests via general class war aggression.
Of course there is an effective path of resistance for individual citizens tired of having their asses kicked - localism.
Io Q. Lellity, I have a couple of thoughts about your post. Most of what you said makes sense and I know that.
I personally went through a living hell when I was a child, but yet as an adult I didn't have violent intentions. For example, God knows I got a great deal of heat for this, I never hit my child. But yet, my son is just the opposite, he is punitive and he has no absolutely no respect for me. He expects me to do everything for him at his whim, but will not go out of his way for me. How can that be? Is it society's influence? What are your thoughts?
Right from the get go of this war people were against it, I was one of those people. If I could have done something it would never have happened. I could see right through the evil. What could I have done to stop it? Some things are above and beyond someone's control.
I have a grandson......9 months old. What will I tell him is that people with money have the power and control in the American government. I will tell him America has been corrupted by corporates and that citizen's in America don't have a say in what happens in government decisions. I will tell him how I voted at the 2000, 2004 and the 2006 elections. I will tell him the results of those elections and how things turned out. I will tell him how the government manipulated this country into war by fear and lies. I will tell him that people who want to do for the better good for all in this country are not respected in America. They are considered weak and sometimes even considered siding with terrorists and enemies of America.
I will tell him that what goes around comes around and people like me will be the ones that help when the country finally collapses from corruption.
capt.clevariant--
The success of the neocons in "outflanking" the left is easily explainable: Americans can be persuaded to do anything, commit any crime, if only they can be persuaded it's in their economic best interests.
Since about 1980, it would have been hard to demonstrate that there was a shred of decency left to the American public. They fear neither God nor their own consciences: They will shop until the slave laborers in China, in Africa, and in Latin America drop. It's okay by them if children are enslaved, as long as they have affordable chocolates. Death squads in Latin America are regretable--but, hey, that's the price you pay for out-of-season produce and nice floral arrangements.
The truth is, Americans are in favor of this kind of thing and feel entitled to a lifestyle paid for with other peoples' blood.
Ask some of them.
Ask some of the people you go to church with, for that matter.
There is no shred of decency left even within American society. The willingness--even eagerness--to commit any crime, to trample on anyone's rights, now extends to their fellow citizens. In business, lying, cheating, and fraud are now the norm. Violence and economic violence are everywhere represented as sound and accepatable social and business practices.
The neocons precisely represent our dominant cultural values.
The people currently running this nation, the radical reactionaries ostensibly led by George Wanker Bush, are the same people who landed on Plymouth Rock. They gave us witch burning, slavery and wiped out the Indian nations. They are now wiping out Iraq. They are also wiping out the United States of America, or rather the ideas we were supposedly founded upon. The regime of George Wanker Bush will prove to be a monumental turning point in our history, when democracy laid down on its deathbed. Next stop: mercantile tyranny.
*YAWN*
While decrying the propaganda machine you do an excellent job of unwittingly repeating most of it.
We weren't enraged. We weren't duped.
We weren't even relevant.
And the administration, catching on to this, is getting more brazen in its efforts to bring about what it wants.
Try challenging some conventional wisdoms. instead of couching your feeble cry for justice between them.
The War on Terror ISN'T necessary, and there's no need for us to "win" our shameful invasion of Iraq.
The closest we can come to "winning" (morally) in Iraq would be to do the following:
-- Admit before a world tribunal that our invasion was unjustified, forego the policy of pre-emptive warfare, and turn over our country's leadership to stand trial at the World Court.
-- Turnover peacekeeping and stabilizing operations to a United Nations force, allowing the Iraqi people to determine the extent to which any of our forces remain as part of a multi-national peacekeeping force.
-- Agree to pay reparations to the country of Iraq for our War Crimes. The amount should be sufficient to finance the reconstruction of infrastructure, recompense for displaced families / damaged property, and assist those widowed / orphaned through our direct actions and through indirect actions resulting from the instability which we caused.
-- Forfeit any right to gain monetarily from the aftermath of this conflict by making America ineligible to bid on any reconstruction contracts. The lost prospect of financial gain, however, should not preclude us from doing the right thing and donating direly needed assistance as requested.
Doesn't sound like much fun, does it? Maybe it sounds like doing this would be to invite a huge unwelcome debt for years to come and no good reason? Maybe so.
But it is the right thing to do, and well all know it. Anybody who tells you differently is just another peddler of America's favorite consumer product: DENIAL-MADE-EASY.
Where's the outrage? It's here, it's looking at its wallet, and its trading its conscience for its comfort.
God bless America.
Io Q. Lellity September 16th, 2007 9:45 pm
The Ignorance or How we produce the Evil
By Alice Miller
WOW... I nearly fell off my computer chair when came across this GEM...Early Childhood Trauma produces these NutJobs like GWB....
Put Differently Alice Miller is the Clinicians clinician to Clinical Psychologists....
" Maybe it sounds like doing this would be to invite a huge unwelcome debt for years to come and no good reason? Maybe so. But it is the right thing to do, and well all know it. Anybody who tells you differently is just another peddler of America's favorite consumer product: DENIAL-MADE-EASY"
We would have to start by equalizing euro-american living conditions with african-american living conditions, and if you want to turn off 75% of the white people in a room, start talking about the morality of reparations for slavery. Randall Robinson wrote two books, one "The Debt", detailing the depth of the injustice & the dimensions reparations ought to take, and "Quitting America" about his experience in trying to persuade people he thought of as fellow liberals to pursue the issue (the reaction was pretty much the same as it is currently -- "That's extremist, we don't have the votes, you must be crazy!").
We're only beginning to glimpse the beginning of what universal equality would mean. So many who profess political equality are horrified at the thought that political equality demands material equality.