Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Learning Curve of Peace
“Why are we violent, but not illiterate?”
This
question, originally posed by writer Colman McCarthy, was asked at the
Midwest Regional Department of Peace conference, which was held last
weekend outside Detroit. It cuts to the core of our troubles. The
answer is agonizingly obvious: “We’re taught to read!” Could it
be we also need to be taught, let us say, calmness, breath and impulse
control, practical applications of the Golden Rule? But until we know
enough to ask these questions, violence, like ignorance, is just a fact
of life.
Oh, humanity. In Russian, the word “mir” means “earth”; it also means “peace.” We know the answers. They’re hidden in our language. We long for peace with every fiber of our being, yet we spend countless trillions annually pursuing its opposite, as though determined in our perversity to be the worst we can be, to squander our enormous intelligence chasing fear and rage to their logical conclusion and annihilating ourselves.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to H.R. 808, the bill to create a cabinet-level U.S. Department of Peace. It was first introduced by Dennis Kucinich in 2001, and reintroduced in every session of Congress thereafter. It has some 70 co-sponsors in the House right now — thanks to the tireless grassroots lobbying efforts of members of the nationwide Peace Alliance — but remains a long way from passage, or even congressional debate. That’s almost beside the point, however. At this stage, the legislation is a focal point for spreading awareness and getting people (members of Congress and everyone else) to start asking the right questions.
“From the growing rate of domestic incarceration to increasing problems of international violence, the United States has no more serious problem in our midst than the problem of violence itself.”
So cries the Peace Alliance website, going on to point out that, while we pursue incarceration, punishment and war with enormous gusto, economically, emotionally and spiritually, “there is within the workings of the U.S. government, no platform from which to seriously wage peace.
“We place no institutional heft behind an effort to address the causal issues of violence, diminishing its psychological force before it erupts into material conflict. From child abuse to genocide, from the murder of one to the slaughter of thousands, it is increasingly senseless to merely wait until violence has erupted before addressing the deeper well from which it springs.”
This begins to get at it. There’s an enormous amount of data, scholarship and technology available on the root causes of violence and the waging of peace, but the fact of this has yet to be embraced politically. To a large extent, government and its attendant industries (especially the media) remain part of the problem — a huge part of the problem — rather than part of the solution.
To know this, ironically, is to know no peace. Building peace is a lot of work, and the work never stops, nor does the awareness that, if we fail to do so, we’re headed, as a nation and a species, along an arc of self-obliteration. It’s far more “peaceful” to remain in denial, to shut down awareness, to numb ourselves with “the comforts of pessimism” (in the words of Paul Williams, in his poem “Common Sense”).
The irony, of course, is linguistic, not real, because working for peace is a process of connecting and bonding with others in deep and joyous ways, which I learned again and again during the conference weekend. Indeed, creating peace means creating connections with one another and pushing past our isolation. Doing so sometimes feels risky (“the luxury of enemies, the sweetness of helplessness,” Williams writes), but is satisfying beyond measure.
The establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Peace, while it would hardly solve all our problems — and while it may not be the mechanism for challenging the rampant militarism of the American empire — is to my mind a crucial step in the de-escalation of American violence.
The department would recognize and fund a myriad of programs already in place, in our schools and courtrooms and on our streets, and signal that government itself recognizes the value of nonviolent conflict resolution. The legislation would also fund a peace academy, advancing our awareness that peace education and the presence of peacemakers in our society are crucial parts of the future we hope to build.
“We have to take the lead on peace,” said Detroit’s Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, the longtime peace activist who gave the keynote address at the conference. He also made a heartfelt plea for the abolition of war, and described in vivid detail the human cost of war in the modern era, mostly as it waged by the United States.
Right now, and throughout my lifetime, we have been the planet’s primary purveyor of violence. For too many, this remains a source of pride — though I doubt those who feel that way would feel a sense of righteousness if we chose, instead, to spread illiteracy in the name of God and country.
- Posted in
48 Comments so far
Show AllThis is an excellent article and a perfect example of what our citizens' "Common Dreams" are made of!
Unfortunately the MIC stands boldly in the way of our acquiring the status of "Peacemaker" because of its addiction to "violence!"
As a 66 year-old, I have lived through enough of our country's warmongering at the hands of Presidents and Congress to know intuitively that such activity will NEVER bring about a lasting peace.
We need as many (or more) purveyors and schools which promote peace and the means to achieve it as we have military bases.
I remember well the required response to our army Drill Sergeant's often screamed question: "What's the spirit of the bayonet?!" To which we had to scream the response: "To kill! To kill!"
Perhaps it's now time to offer a different kind of training to our military: "The Spirit and Pursuit of the Roads to Peace!"
"I remember well the required response to our army Drill Sergeant's often screamed question: "What's the spirit of the bayonet?!" To which we had to scream the response: "To kill! To kill!"
That's because
" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. " -George Orwell
George Orwell didn't say this.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070529213021AAe9Hqo
"George Orwell is the source, but this is the given phraseology: “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
In the same article you sent. But thank you for bringing light to the quote and giving me something to research.
In his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", Orwell claimed that the statement, "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf" was a "grossly obvious" fact. "Notes on Nationalism"
Pacifism what an idea! It worked out great for the French.
Pacifism what an idea! It worked out great for the French.
Violence, what an idea! It is working out so well for the Afghans, the Iraqis and the Pakistanis. Your warmongering does not obviate the fact that the United States has been and still is the most war-like and bellicose country on earth.
Yep you are right my "warmongering" has never brought anything but violence and death. Good think Linclon wasn't a "warmongerer" or this country would stil have slaves. Good think that the French weren't "warmongerers" either when Hitler was building his army and envaded, (which the french had the military superiority to stop) cause that could of lead to a major world war and countless of worthless deaths. We should just get rid or our military and wait for the others to follow cause let's face that is the only reason we don't have peace on earth.
LAH
Your grammatically mangled comments make very little sense at all. Your example of the French being envaded [sic] by the Germans could, in a way, be applied to either the Afghans or the Iraqis as they too were illegally invaded and occupied by a superior military force for no justifiable reason and that would be the United States. I fail to understand what your point, if any, may be. What Martin Luther King Jr. said over forty years ago still applies today and that is "that the biggest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government." Try giving us an example after 1945 where military intervention was justified. Five will get you ten that you are unable to do so.
"Try giving us an example after 1945 where military intervention was justified"
So are yuo saying that every war up till 1945 was justified? If that is the case than one can easily say every war since 1945 has been to serve the better of man kind too. I'm not saying war is pretty and something to be taken lightly as you seem to have me confused for someone who just wants to bomb the world over. I just don't believe in the pacifist way.
But WE aren't violent. It's our government that's violent. Think about your day-to-day interactions with other people. When was the last time you used violence to resolve a conflict?
I'm all for teaching children (and others) nonviolent conflict-resolution skills (can't hurt), but our country exists in a permanent state of war, not because the American people are inherently violent, but because a tiny handful of people at the very top of our society see financial and political gain for themselves in endless war.
But the author can't seem to make this distinction. For example:
We long for peace with every fiber of our being, yet we spend countless trillions annually pursuing its opposite, as though determined in our perversity to be the worst we can be, to squander our enormous intelligence chasing fear and rage to their logical conclusion and annihilating ourselves.
Who is longing for peace? Who decides to spend trillions on war?
You're absolutely right, Steve, when you say, "The warmongers are a tiny handful of people at the very top of our society that see financial and political gain for themselves in endless war."
To that I would add: "and who never themselves have to personally participate in such dangerous violence!"
Consider U.S. military spending compared to that of the rest of the world. According to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States accounts for 42% of total global military spending, more than exceeding the combined spending of the next 15 most powerful countries. The United States and its allies now account for two-thirds of total world military expenditures.
We are definitely warmongers!
So if we cut our military spending to those of the other countries would that make our world a safer less violent place?
"We are definitely warmongers!"
Again, this is a very sloppy use of the word "We." Did a million Americans march down the streets of New York City demanding that the US invade Iraq? Or did a million Americans march down the streets of New York City demanding that the U.S. NOT invade Iraq?
SteveB:
Like it or not, "the Government" is a reflection of "us."
Our culture has a hard time looking inward and accepting responsibility. By blaming "the Government" and "the elite" this gets "us" out of having to do the hard work of becoming more peaceful, as individuals, and collectively as a nation.
If you find yourself wrapped up in sending angry, frustrated thoughts towards leaders and the elite, or your spouse and neighbors, this is also violence, albeit on a smaller scale. (It's one thing to disagree with what leaders do; it's quite another to become resentful and aim it at them.) Leaders usually have a larger horizon of influence, but we all participate in the ratio of peace to violence.
I think progressives need to realize that collectively we do have power to peacefully change the atmosphere around us, and that in time, if enough people make the shift, it will move our country in the direction of peace. Won't be overnight, but we didn't get this violent overnight, either. This knowledge of our own power might help progressives opt out of the cycle of blame and rage, and move towards creative, proactive solutions, instead.
"I think progressives need to realize that collectively we do have power to peacefully change the atmosphere around us, and that in time, if enough people make the shift, it will move our country in the direction of peace."
Yes, I agree with you. Saying that our country's war-like policies are a reflection of the desire for war on the part of a tiny elite is NOT saying that the tiny elite must always prevail, or that we cannot overcome them, or shouldn't try.
"By blaming 'the Government' and 'the elite' this gets 'us' out of having to do the hard work of becoming more peaceful, as individuals, and collectively as a nation.
As I said above, I'm in favor of nonviolence education and training. So, once again we don't disagree as much as you seem to think we do.
"Like it or not, 'the Government' is a reflection of 'us.' "
Really? When 70% of Americans say they want a public option, do we get a public option?
Look, there obviously must be some middle ground between "The policies of the US government reflect the desires of the American people" and "We live in a dictatorship where elites control everything and public opinion doesn't matter at all." Saying that our foreign policy is governed by the war lust of a economic and political elite doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to try to change things, but at the same time, we shouldn't absolve our "leaders" of any responsibility by claiming they're just reflecting our desires.
In general, I think it's quite remarkable how peaceful most people are. In a city like New York, there are tens of millions of personal interactions every single day, and only .00001% of them involve physical violence. Stack that record up against the actions of our government, which can't seem to get through a single day without threatening some country with invasion, and you'll start to see where the real problem lies.
On 9-11-01 the vast majority wanted violent retribution. Don't kid yourself. I was one of very very few that were talking peace that day. The media, mainly television and movies, have been prepping the population's psyche towards the acceptance of violence for decades. Now, ten years, a million dead people, and a depleted treasury, more problems than can be addressed, the thrill has worn off.
Children aren't born longing for war. It is learned behavior. A Dept of Peace is a great step towards Teaching your children well.
"On 9-11-01 the vast majority wanted violent retribution.": this is absolutely not true! Rewind and play the two weeks following 9/11/01 and all the interviews had people speaking as human beings, people around the country were contacting family and friends, around the world the goodwill of sympathies flowed toward America...then Bush orchestrated with a Bull Horn and the pulling out of his breast pocket a letter from a 4 year old bequeathing her father to the nation two days after a 4 year old told her father Reservist on Peter Jennings' Special that she "Wanted her daddy to be special at home"(falling to a hug in his lap), ringing the true sentiment that is underscored on the mural by Children of the 9/11/01 Deceased at one time in the under ground of Ground Zero..."Daddy, I remember the summer you built the picnic table at the beach" -- that's how true Father Energy (Bly calls if 'Zeus') is passed on, not by a sullen drunk at the VFW with a Purple Heart stashed in a corner never talked about...but the chase was on and the Rove taunt was right, "When everyone is all concerned about what we did three months ago...we'll be making the news of three months to come" (ha, ha, ha...snicker, snicker...snort)...there was a slight moment of the New People in February of 2003, but with the Drone assassinations and the commencement of Obama's Trail of Tears, no, human dignity has not caught up to the NeoCon Rabbit...but Obama's Trail of Tears has begun and the Drones are assassinating...and a 7 year old girl is gunned down in a Detroit police most wanted hunt...so, no, I don't campaign for the DOP anymore...as for me, I believe there has to be some sort of intervention or transformation on a very basic human level for humanity to learn it's next lesson and move on...perhaps with the addition of the Oil Geyser in the Gulf of Mexico will tumble that domino...
I don't own nor watch television, so I didn't see the interviews you mention or the little girl. My comment was based on the people I saw and heard speak. I was working in a building with about 5,000 people in it. I spoke to a great many of them. A shaky guess would be 98% wanted violent retribution. Bush surely fanned the flames, but the fire was already lit.
"But we aren't violent." those that do not appear to be overtly violent, may be very aggressive internally and or do not object to war as sometimes ok. this blind acceptance of our military actions throughout the world, makes the "we" group that you speak of just as complicit in violence as the soldier who does the actual killing. It is called aiding and abetting. You may not go into a bank and wave a gun around demanding money during a hold up, but if you are driving the get away car ,you will also be held liable."We" as non violent voters elected and continue to allow our govt. to run around the world stealing resources and attacking countries on trumped up charges. You are part of the collective consciousness, quite claiming otherwise.
Peace cannot be taught, but it can be exposed as being here by removing ' taught ' obstacles. Peace is the fundamental essence of life that is always present just under the surface, but is covered up and denied by teaching young men and women to protect the peace [ really the absence of war] through killing. We can however be taught to not act out in violence, starting with the deglamorization of the american warrior.
"to protect the peace [ really the absence of war] through killing"
"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it." -
-- George Orwell
Very well said sirios333.
If Americans really knew and understood war they would be more active in demanding peace from their government. Most Americans are very, very lucky that they haven't had to experience war first-hand. Therefore, they don't have a true understanding about what war really is and does, and what peace really means. But Americans can't know war because they don't go to war with their soldiers. What information we get about the war is from TV, newspapers, books and movies. If we had a true free press we might be able to see what war is really like. But we don't have a free press so what we are given is a sanitized version of the war. A version that allows us to go on with our daily lives as our troops are engaged in wars in two countries. We are not asked to sacrifice anything while the soldier literally puts their life on the line, and in our name. And when they come home we don't want to hear their stories, unless they go along with the TV version. Americans will never learn peace until they learn war. And the best part is that they don't have to go to war to learn it. They just have to listen to all the veterans that our country has and continues to produce. I would recommend Bobby Muller for the first Secretary of the Department of Peace.
Hoa binh
Onecaptjim - I'm with you.
This is the beginning of my comment on the Phyllis Bennis lead essay:
The United States of America, minion of, for, and by Israel = THE TWO-HEADED EVIL EMPIRE on a constant roll.
In a conservative, religious right, Republican town, am I taking my life in my hands by painting this on the tailgate of my rusting-out 1986 Blazer:
IF YOU DON'T KNOW YET THAT WE'VE LOST OUR NATION,
YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.
Most folks in this country aren't even close to getting this yet. Unfortunately, it's true. OUTSIDE MONEY/CORPORATE MONEY cum ZIONISM control us. Mussolini's fascist, corporate government comes to mind and the fanaticism of Adolph Schickelgruber and friends.
You're an oldie too, onecaptjim; maybe a little younger than I perhaps. But I was alive and alert back then to remember the talk, the headlines, and who of my relatives and neighbors were across the ocean in Europe and in the Pacific. In these last ten years the lead-up inklings to Election 2000 became the fact, and I understood and understand quite fully now that history repeats, except we are not the good guys anymore and those whose relatives were subject and subject to "The Beast" have themselves taken on the trappings and activities of "The Beast."
When you know, it feels like fighting fog most of the time. My children, who do not live close at all, are lovely people [late 40's, early 50's] to talk with by phone. But their ignorance is appalling to me. They are so busy in their good life, and they don't really want to hear very much their 50's-girl mother turned-activist-in the-'60's, the doom-and-gloom facts of our current, but precarious, earthly life.
For me, it's not "tie me down;" it's waking up after dreaming not-so-good dreams to get up and deal with the heaviness in my shoulders and keep on truckin' as I go about my wake-up calls wherever I can--often gently, carefully dropping seeds of reality into sweet, innocent minds or often trying to find an opening in hard-edged, suspicious minds that don't have a clue.
Likely all of this that is happening is necessary to eventually wake up America of particular generations from their i-pod/blackberry songs and text messages that isolate them from any reality outside of their own little lives.
It's comin' down the pike, and it ain't gonna' be pretty. And that is not a happy thing for so many without a clue to wake up to one of these days. Fortunately human beings are resilient and once they get the hang of what's happening, they will do what they have to do to survive, and if there is time, to eventually thrive, but with a lot more sophistication.
peace, cm
++++++++++++
There is no heartbeat on earth that is not somehow our own.
But let's be honest. What idea underpins violence? It's the notion of Us versus Them. Whether it's country, gender, religion, etc. And which institution has been the chief purveyor of that idea? Organized Religion. Just as the MIC thrives and needs war, religion thrives on and needs the division of Us versus Them. (And I'm talking about the institutions of religion, not Jesus or Moses or Muhammad).
I guarantee you, one generation after the last of the big three organized religions dies out, THEN there will be peace.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Denis Diderot (1713 – 1784)
And WHY does Thomas Gumbleton - who appears to be a decent human being - continue to belong to an organization that supports and promotes violence? Toss out those Bishop's robes Thomas and you'll have credibility.
"We are the only species that follow unstable pack leaders around the world. Animals don't. Animals follow only calm assertive energy."
- Cesar Milan, the Dog Whisperer.
'"Why are we violent, but not illiterate?"...The answer is agonizingly obvious: "We're taught to read!" ...But until we know enough to ask these questions, violence, like ignorance, is just a fact of life.'" To me, this explains the 'logic' of establishing a Department of Peace.
Because a person may be able to read doesn't certify that that person is not ignorant. Both violence and ignorance ARE facts of life within the American Empire. And every thinking person knows that illiteracy is fast becoming a way of life among the ignorant masses.
Here's one example out of thousands: "Bristol Palin is going on the talk lecture tour. Apparently she's going to talk about abstinence, instead of just abstaining from making a bigger fool of herself than she already is. She's going to get $15,000 to $30,000 an appearance." (courtesy of Les).
The statement: "...until we know enough to ask these questions" is ludicrous. The original question is framed in such a way as to attempt to equate violence with illiteracy. We already have a Department of Ignorance. It's called TV and the mainstream media.
So what should we do about it - establish a Department of Knowledge? This makes as much sense as trying to establish a Department of Peace within the same framework as the Empire's Department of War. Talk about grasping for straws!
" Peace is every step" Thich Nhat Hanh .... Peace must flow from every action, word and thought.....verdad, lo puede !
Paz, tioche, Mexico
Robert I am a great fan of yours. Your essential humanity always stuns me. I would like to share something that has been haunting me recently. Love!
Imagine a public school K-12 curriculum of Love every day for an hour just like math and science. Think of all the good sources for stories of love. Imagine what we humans would be in seven generations if we just started right now to practice love and respect and compassion and empathy when we remember, just when we have the chance - even with strangers, just in our thoughts. Maybe peace is a better word. Imagine a cabinet post the secretary of Love. Imagine government investment like in Kerala India, where 35 percent of every rupee paid in State taxes is returned to neighborhoods to invest in community projects to be determined and carried out by the community of 200 to 500 families living in proximity. Imagine the trust, respect and mutual aid that devolves to enhance community life. What would public service imbued with love look like? Government? What would a ‘restorative economy’ look like?
But love right straight out love for one another for the planet for all living things and places love is the only way out of the darkness. Peace yes! But we must make a larger step, each in our own way to embrace love. To be Lovers all!
This article demonstrates some standard, awful, ineffective framing by progressives.
"Why are we violent?" is really too vague of a question.
Sure, people can be encouraged, taught, and trained to understand non-violent approaches to conflict resolution, and loving, peaceful, caring relationships. And I believe in that. The Dalai Lama says we need to have a feeling of compassion and a sense of responsibility. I agree.
And there are better questions and FAR better answers than "peace" approaches to preventing violence than asking "why are we violent" and answering "teaching peace."
That is a bit like the wife of the Mafia don nagging her murdering husband to improve his conscience and sense of morality and to be nice to people.
Here is a better question:
"How can violence be prevented?"
What is the answer? It isn't really "pursuing peace" or "educating for peace" in a direct sense.
Violence is prevented by the processes described by the word the article fails to even mention: law.
Ben Ferencz (see www.benferencz.org) is a former chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. He has helped me understand that he functional opposite of war is not peace, but law.
The US continues to kill innocent people around the world because, for example, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and President Obama are not in jail. The Israeli military continues to kill innocent Palestinian civilians because the International Criminal Court (ICC) has no enforcement mechanism, due the the US being able to block its enforcement at the undemocratic UNSC. And the US can block the enforcement of law by preventing the democratizion of the UN. The same goes for Palestinians launching rockets that kill and maim innocent Israeli civilians.
Law should be blind and be enforceable on all, equally. We have the laws but not strict enforcement, or too often, no enforcement whatsoever.
No American president has ever been prosecuted by the unlawful use of force, even though many presidents have committed war crimes, crimes against peace, and even violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act.
Ben Ferencz helped to create the ICC. But its power to enforce laws that prohibit illegal violence remains weak.
If we want peace, we need enforceable international laws.
Julian Blaustein (along with Edmund North and Robert Wise) wrote and produced an entire movie about this topic and had the key character in the film deliver a speech on the concept. The movie is The Day the Earth Stood Still, first in theaters in 1951. Here is the speech by Klaatu:
Klaatu's Speech
"I am leaving soon and you'll forgive me if I speak bluntly. The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure. Now this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this when they made laws to govern themselves and hiredpolicemen to enforce them. We, of the other planets, have long accepted this principle. We have an organization for the mutual protection of all planets and for the complete elimination of aggression. The test of any such higher authority is, of course, the police force that supports it. For our policemen we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets in spaceships like this one and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression we have given them absolute power over us. This power cannot be revoked. At the first signs of violence they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. The result is we live in peace without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war, free to pursue more profitable enterprises. Now, we do not pretend to have achieved perfection, but we do have a system, and it works. I came here to give you these facts. It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is simple: join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you."
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/klaatu.html
Progressives would be better off taking about tough enforcement of constitutional and international laws in addition to talking about teaching the joys of peace. We need both.
Your argument is chickens and eggs. If the chicks were taught and believed in peace, then they wouldn't lay war eggs. Prosecuting criminals is after the fact.
No war, no war crimes.
And, how much more proof do you need that you can't legislate morality?
What a wonderful idea!
.
I am a superficial student of change theory. Haven't really studied it to any depth but I find the ideas in change theory that there ae promoting and restraining factors that will impact whether or not the change will occur.
For America to become a harbinger of peace, peace would have to be more profitable than war. Right now there are tremendous profits from war, falling to a few. Most Americans don't even't look the cost of war in the face. Our children are not drafted. We are untouched (we think) by the costs of war. But I think that the costs of war are becoming more and more obvious and harder and harder to ignore.
Because of our costly war, we cannot create an effective health plan. We cannot intelligently fix our education system. Our governance over coal mines is absent and corrupt.
Everyone hopes, prays, bets that they will be a winner sometime in the lottery of wealth. So they want all those pro-wealth rules in place. I guess, just in case.
I hope we wake up soon. And in time to do something.
Creating a government department to control the government will not work. It is the responsibility of the citizens to control the government, but most citizens either lack that knowledge and sense of power...or are just coming to realize it.
As for education, putting peace education in the hands of a government department will likely result in corruption of that education and a watered down version of peace education. We'd end up with peace education sponsored by large corporations.
I do think that citizens need to be educated on a number of issues and need to be forced to reconnect with everything hiding behind the veil of society and that doing so effectively would result in less fuel to the war machine.
Even if people weren't educated in non-violence, if all homes were running off of wind and solar power, think of the huge jam in the war machine that would cause. Add in transportation that runs on renewable energy that one can obtain for free, and you jam it again.
The problem is that it's not easy to get people to convert their lifestyles to something more self-reliant. We've grown up being told that we need city services, public utilities, the current version of the banking system, fossil fuels, chemicals and religion in order to thrive. If that perception can be changed...and can be done without great expense...people would quit supporting war without knowing it. The CEOs and COOs of these large corporations would be without jobs and we'd be living in a more peaceful society - perhaps one where people need to work less since they are giving less money to the corporations and find time to reconnect with friends and family - where we begin to rebuild communities.
Wow , there's a novel idea, American tax dollars being spent on a Department of Peace, which will be assigned to the Pentagon.
Once again, more passing the buck. America lacks common sense leadership that is not bought an sold by the military industrial lobby, or Wall Street and Bankers lobby.
There is no money to be made by the corporate war mongers without financial chaos and war.
The war hawks will tell us that to look for peaceful diplomatic solutions is niave, as they send their covert mercenaries and political operatives into country's to create the chaos that the USA military will have to be called in to control.
President Eisenhower warned before he left office about the military industrial complex.But,, our government officials listen listen with the hands out, palm up.
This country has been hijacked by the war hawk corporate elite , the neo-con capital disaster war hawks.
Peace, what Peace,
Looks like Brazil and Turkey may have saved us from another war hawk disaster with Iran. Just because the USA is playing the empire game doesn't mean the rest of the world will continue to play.
The world knows what happened 9/11, and they see the occupations as illegal control of oil markets. The world is not going to allow the USA/Israel fear/war mongering machine to continue to destroy other country's for empire.
Why??? Simple. A free Iran means competitive oil markets, Brazil,Turkey, Russia and China want oil too.
Enough is enough. I dont want my tax dollars being spent on war that put more power and money into the war hawks pockets, and as a result , America is turning into a third world economic mess for the middle class and the poor.
Why We Invest in War
For decades after the battles the ground
yielded metal parts of guns and cannons
teeth and finger sized bones.
Once a bomb was hit by a shovel.
Those who did not remember the jagged
walls of the village during the carnage
were instructed by the elders
as they watched a specialist
disarm the bomb
planted like a tulip bulb
in the field where sheep wavered
like fish over the field
for the years since the armistice.
Children stop believing such loss
is possible. They
are given facsimiles of high-powered
guns on the birth of the prince of peace
and they enjoy creeping through hedges
to corner the ones designated
to be the villagers who will be slaughtered
How did this become normal?
When did it become cute?
In Texas history is being rewritten
to absorb the facilitation of rape
and vigilante justice based on skin
and nationality.
The Trails of Tears become a necessity
for growth.
Nat Turner is a terrorist who threatens
the Republic and whose followers caused the Civil War
Taking jobs away from people who then die from
preventable diseases is Free Market Reform
Massacres of Fallujah were a small action taken after
the people who lived there were asked to leave
even if they are tangled together in various graves
like fish.
I do not believe in peace.
I do believe in less war.
One of my favorite musicians is a man named Kokoman. In one of his songs he states, "Peace is an attribute of love, not the mere absence of war"
I think I got that right.
Maybe we need to look around and seriously ask OURSELVES the question, "What is Peace?"
Peace
Most people (in the US) don't understand just what Kokoman is saying in that lyric. Although they think it makes sense and find it poetic, the word "love" has to be redefined in one's mind to truly understand the lyric. The depth of the truth of that lyric can be uncovered by understanding Gandhi's teachings.
Borrowed from:
THE TOMORROW TESTAMENT
by Barry Longyear
"Aydan," spoke Niagat, "I would serve Heraak; I would see an end to war; I would be one of your warmasters."
"Would you kill to achieve this, Niagat ?"
"I would kill."
"Would you kill Heraak to achieve this ?"
"Kill Heraak, my master ?" Niagat paused and considered the question.
"If I cannot have both, I would see Heraak dead to see an end to war."
"That is not what I asked."
"And, Aydan, I would do the killing."
"And, now, would you die to achieve this ?"
"I would risk death as does any warrior."
"Again, Niagat, that is not my question. If an end to war can only be purchased at the certain cost of your life, would you die by your own hand to achieve peace ?"
Niagat studied upon the thing that Aydan asked.
"I am willing to take the gamble of battle. In this gamble there is the chance of seeing my goal. But my certain death, and by my own hand - there would be no chance of seeing my goal. No, I would not take my own life for this. That would be foolish. - Have I passed your test ?"
"You have failed, Niagat.
"Eh?"
"Your goal is not peace; your goal is to live in peace. Return when your goal is peace alone and you hold a willing knife at your own throat to achieve it. That is the price of a warmaster's blade."
Observations:
The =immune system= of any living thing consists of warriors who engage in a war against invaders for survival and the continued physical integrity of this DNA Unit. An ordinary finger cut involves war. Without that biological response, a finger cut means death.
If you do not want to see "sausages being made" - then you really don't want to see inside the uterus of any female chimpanzee, who commonly could have the sperm of eight different males inside her. While 90 percent of spermatazoa try to kill each other in vicious donnybrook warfare, 10 percent are trying to reach the unfertilized egg. While eight is a high number for human females, three or two is not uncommon in some subcultures.
War is characteristic of biological LIFE.
War is different than competition.
Mankind's spiritual quest is to overcome the biological urges of competition to survive.