Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Violence Protects the State
'Violence is the modus operandi of the State. To build a free society, we will have to use different means.'
On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered, he spoke passionately in a sermon at Riverside Church in New York about the war in Vietnam. In this gripping speech about the hypocrisy of bringing democracy through napalm and the audacity of fostering a brotherhood through war and killing, he made a daring confession: “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today —my own government.”
The most significant social movement in the US in the coming months will be the Occupy movement, as it returns in some numbers to the street. As the Occupy movement grows more polarized between strategies in light of its upcoming spring activities, it might do well to reflect on the logic of Dr. King’s brave statement. Contrary to what Peter Gelderloos and others have claimed, it is violence and the stasis of a dysfunctional system of oppression that protects the state, not nonviolence. How does violence protect the state? Do a few general internet searches on the Occupy movement in images to see how that movement is visually narrated (not to mention how it feels to see the portrayed reduction of a promising national movement into a series of police confrontations).
“I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today —my own government.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.Examining these images with some detachment, we might wonder how this civil war with police began. This examination might also give us some clues about the general population’s confusion about “what Occupy wants,” and the US citizenry’s preference for political candidates who do not create violence on the streets—even if those elected officials ultimately maintain systems of greater violence within our society and between it and other nations. If the choice is between unruly demonstrations and elections, Occupy risks becoming a reason to turn to politics as usual.
Paradoxically, while the public will be fascinated by police/Occupy confrontations, and while the media will mock activists’ lack of moral character and strength for accepting violence as an effective strategy, it will only make the way safer and clearer for greater state violence to be perpetrated in the name of national security. Who knows, we may be pulled into a new war with Iran in the coming year —what better way to stifle a movement: delegitimize it (through violence), and then unite us against a common enemy!
Violence in opposition to the State relieves the State and the citizenry of any guilt for a brutal response to all protesters—and it refocuses from the nominal issue to the issue of violence by protesters. Thus any violence by protesters serves the state well (just ask anyone employed by the government who has hired an agent provocateur). It is a weapon of mass distraction. Stop worrying about the uptick in home foreclosures, the dead being shipped back from Afghanistan, and the new increases in the Pentagon’s proposed budget—look at the violent window-breakers from Occupy who threaten us all!
Just a few weeks ago, I was in dialogue with an official from the Pentagon’s weapons acquisitions team. In his final assessment (the conversation was about the present year’s National Defense Authorization Act and our Metta Center advocacy of alternatives to killing), our organization’s proposal of a nonviolent policy—a new U.S. policy of deep reconciliation to combat terrorism— “creates guilt, which is not good.” In other words, by repressing guilt, we can continue killing people.
Keep in mind that soldiers are committing suicide in higher numbers than ever before, and therefore we should pay attention to what this guilt is telling us. This mindset of denial echoed by the Pentagon official, integral to waging war, is rooted in a belief about ourselves as separate from one another—in other words, that we should be able to kill one another without remorse, which is the supreme superstition of a violent system. On the level of the Occupy movement, we might formulate it as a principle: activists cannot harm the actors of the State without harming our movement. The more we fight against the police, the more we allowing ourselves to be seen as accepting violent tactics, the stronger we make the system we want to change, the deeper that system digs in its heels. The more we entertain the use of violence, or even create occasions where it can break out, the more violence is justified. Why? Because as Max Weber’s definition of the State suggests, it "upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." Violence is the modus operandi of the State. To build a free society, we will have to use different means.
Nonviolence is not just protest, it is not simply occupying space and it is not just about adversarial confrontations; it’s about our humanity. Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan brilliantly document the power of civil resistance when it uses nonviolence as its means to replace leaders. We should read their work and others, but we should not be afraid of going deeper either; more than changing a certain regime at this time, we need to transform a culture.
In short, in order to delegitimize a violent system, we have to delegitimize violence. This change requires us to adopt a principle about human beings and human dignity: we will not use violence against others because we want to create a vibrant culture, a merciful culture, a generous culture because we as human beings have the potential to nurture these qualities within ourselves and each other. We will not degrade human dignity because it is not worthy of ourselves as people; let this be the motivation for our long-term struggle. The power of the violent State system would stand much less chance against a movement committed to this nonviolent, compassionate spirit of unity.
- Posted in
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...
130 Comments so far
Show AllI agree with you that they may not have improved much. However, look at France before and after the revolution: the life of the peasant versus the life of the average French person today seems to be dramatically different. At least today they get health care.
Anyway, the American Revolution and the Civil War were wars waged by elites, in a way.
The social benefits that the French enjoy today are more to do with the new post-wwII Republic (I believe its the 5th) than the original Revolution.
But your point still holds.
A Revolution should be neither "violent" nor "non-violent", it should be carried out by all just means, and if the Ruling Powers fall without violence, so much the better.
In general, peacenik activists give Gandhi way too much credit for Indian Independence, and therefore give too much credit too his non-violent methods of resistance.
Besides Indian groups who certainly employed violence, there is also the small matter of the Brits closing up the shopdoors on their rapaciously violent Empire in the achievemnt of independence for India.
Good article! I'm not dogmatic, but would prefer non violence, but sometimes it's easier said than done.
But Gandhi from what I know wasn't dogmatic about non vilence he allowed for Indians fighting against the Nazis, and I think under certain circumstances he'd allow for doing so against the British Empire. But he still was the "great soul" he was known as.
You are recalling Gandhi perfectly correctly AD.
Non-violence to him was a principle to adhere to with every effort that one could, not an absolutist dogma.
I doubt very much that Gandhi would advocate violence for us Americans today.
But would he understand if our peaceful movement needed to defend itself rigorously if the current soft-oppression turns hard?
ABSOLUTELY!
I was being a little silly about the French Revolution, but thanks for granting me the point. : ) And, I agree with the rest of your comment.
Sorry, spelling,Gandhian. We universally,or so we (world community) claim to reject agressive violence ("being" and property violence). Also we chose to universally accept defensive, "being' and property, violence. Though it does seem a large number of "leftist" USA pundits make the exception of acceptance of defensive violence in the situation of current USA rebellions. It could be argued that the antidote for aggressive global violence against beings and property is Gandhian "being" non violence plus defensive violence against property. I would separate the actions just as MLK and the Black Panthers were separate, both great threats to the aggressively violent state.
People talk about self defense, but we also have a duty to defend others. We in Amerika have become so enamored of our individualism that we can ignore harm done to others.
Take the Jerry Sandusky pedophile case at Penn State. The assistant coach says he saw Sandusky sodomize a little boy, yet did nothing. Most people felt outrage at this adult man for not coming to the defense of this little boy.
But what about the little children we murder every day in Afghanistan? Don't we have a duty to defend them? Or must we watch it happen and voice our disapproval, without more?
Great point.
Bingo!
Antodote for "agressive global violence" may include defensive property violence on anyones part, or even "being" violence if one chooses. Defense does not exclude anyone or anything. That said it is sad that so, so many "left" pundits speak of USA lives and "teasure" continuing in forgeting my Afghan sisters and brothers (and others).
The pledge of allegiance is administered every day to, as far as I know from my youth, every child. It is the one constant in education and it is a brainwashing technique and it is clearly promoting religion and Lies.
First off, this is NOT a "republic." It is a re-private.
The public is specifically NOT allowed into the workings of this government. When we get a glimpse of the inner workings, those who made that glimpse possible are attacked as traitors.
Second, "under god" mandates a belief in a god.
Third, "with liberty and justice for all" implies the right to go wherever and do whatever you want AND that all people (not just "citizens") can state their case equally without any obstruction AND that the government will defend your right to do this.
So, what part of the pledge of allegiance is truth?
It seems we have the right to worship a piece of cloth which represents deceit.
This is the part of the education system which this government wants stressed every day to school children.
I believe that many school children can see that these words are not the truth, but then the real purpose becomes clear.
The pledge is primarily a promise to remain compliant to the group.
We are taught that the most important form of ardent devotion is to be submissive and promote the lies.
This brainwashing has worked amazingly well for the minority of people who have access to power over other people and their environment.
I suppose this seems like a digression from the reasoning in this article, but I can't help wondering if this doesn't get to the core of the argument.
We are awash in deceit.
If we say that we want truth and real justice, then we need to be true to ourselves and ,if we truly believe that the aggressive-ness of the corporate state and its policing through brutality is the hallmark of perversity, then we need to be otherwise, as much as is humanly possible.
The pledge of allegiance is nothing but a pledge for the 1%. I think it is way past time for the occupy movement to come up with a new pledge of allegiance, maybe something like:
I pledge allegiance to the people of the 99%----with liberty and justice for all.
We have Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land," which Guthrie wrote in response to Irving Berlin's nauseating God Bless America.
Excellent! How about this land is your land and God Bless The World's 99%
When MLK made the statement: " The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today--my own government ". He spoke volumes! Mr. King, could have also included the WHORE MSM as SYCHOPHANTS for the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, because they corroborated King's statement by calling him a commie among other violent and racist names.
Scahill made an intersting comment on DN yesterday, that the USA media is being more aggressive and propagandist on attacking defensive Iran than is the USA government, we are so deep in the pit the light is barely discernable, perhaps the cave in is our best hope. Oh for those who have not noticed criminal wars are the highest form of chaos.
Stephanie is correct about the State depending on violence to justify its own violence in destroying the movement. This is why Chris Hedges was so critical of the 'Black Bloc' and their random vandalism against alleged corporate targets. Gandhi's use of non-violence was instrumental in achieving Indian independence from a very violent British Empire. The same could work here in the U.S.
An almost identical controversy arose over the subject of John Brown and his actions in 1859. Henry David Thoreau was outspoken about Brown and his critics, and would have disagreed with you on this.
Some of his remarks about John Brown:
It was his peculiar doctrine that a man has a perfect right to interfere by force with the slaveholder, in order to rescue the slave. I agree with him. They who are continually shocked by slavery have some right to be shocked by the violent death of the slaveholder, but no others. Such will be more shocked by his life than by his death. I shall not be forward to think him mistaken in his method who quickest succeeds to liberate the slave. I speak for the slave when I say that I prefer the philanthropy of Captain Brown to that philanthropy which neither shoots me nor liberates me. At any rate, I do not think it is quite sane for one to spend his whole life in talking or writing about this matter, unless he is continuously inspired, and I have not done so. A man may have other affairs to attend to. I do not wish to kill nor to be killed, but I can foresee circumstances in which both these things would be by me unavoidable. We preserve the so-called peace of our community by deeds of petty violence every day. Look at the policeman's billy and handcuffs! Look at the jail! Look at the gallows! Look at the chaplain of the regiment! We are hoping only to live safely on the outskirts of this provisional army. So we defend ourselves and our hen-roosts, and maintain slavery. I know that the mass of my countrymen think that the only righteous use that can be made of Sharp's rifles and revolvers is to fight duels with them, when we are insulted by other nations, or to hunt Indians, or shoot fugitive slaves with them, or the like. I think that for once the Sharp's rifles and the revolvers were employed in a righteous cause. The tools were in the hands of one who could use them.
The same indignation that is said to have cleared the temple once will clear it again. The question is not about the weapon, but the spirit in which you use it. No man has appeared in America, as yet, who loved his fellow-man so well, and treated him so tenderly. He lived for him. He took up his life and he laid it down for him. What sort of violence is that which is encouraged, not by soldiers, but by peaceable citizens, not so much by laymen as by ministers of the Gospel, not so much by the fighting sects as by the Quakers, and not so much by Quaker men as by Quaker women?
This event advertises me that there is such a fact as death - the possibility of a man's dying. It seems as if no man had ever died in America before; for in order to die you must first have lived. I don't believe in the hearses, and palls, and funerals that they have had. There was no death in the case, because there had been no life; they merely rotted or sloughed off, pretty much as they had rotted or sloughed along. No temple's veil was rent, only a hole dug somewhere. Let the dead bury their dead. The best of them fairly ran down like a clock. Franklin - Washington - they were let off without dying; they were merely missing one day. I hear a good many pretend that they are going to die; or that they have died, for aught that I know. Nonsense! I'll defy them to do it. They haven't got life enough in them. They'll deliquesce like fungi, and keep a hundred eulogists mopping the spot where they left off. Only half a dozen or so have died since the world began. Do you think that you are going to die, sir? No! there's no hope of you. You haven't got your lesson yet. You've got to stay after school. We make a needless ado about capital punishment - taking lives, when there is no life to take. Memento mori! We don't understand that sublime sentence which some worthy got sculptured on his gravestone once. We've interpreted it in a grovelling and snivelling sense; we've wholly forgotten how to die.
But be sure you do die nevertheless. Do your work, and finish it. If you know how to begin, you will know when to end.
These men, in teaching us how to die, have at the same time taught us how to live. If this man's acts and words do not create a revival, it will be the severest possible satire on the acts and words that do. It is the best news that America has ever heard. It has already quickened the feeble pulse of the North, and infused more and more generous blood into her veins and heart than any number of years of what is called commercial and political prosperity could. How many a man who was lately contemplating suicide has now something to live for!
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/johnbrown/thoreauplea.html
Thanks for posting the writing and the link!
Yes, thanks for posting it. I will have to read that quite a few times before understanding it. It reads like an Upanishad.
That is but a small excerpt from what at the time was considered relatively brief remarks. It comes from a time when people appreciated the fact that communicating effectively and clearly required a nuanced and complex use of language. Today anything more than a few brief paragraphs, with brief sentences and a limited vocabulary, is seen as too wordy, too complex, too dense to understand.
Clever little sound bites and catchy sales and marketing slogans are favored now, drawing from and heavily laced with a limited range of dumbed-down cliches and emotional appeals. Those cliches and slogans play on prejudice and emotions, and they all reinforce and promote the same themes, reactionary and conservative themes that serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful few and operate in a stealth manner to prevent any questioning of the system and the social arrangements and conventions that keep the system in place.
It is a wonder we can communicate at all anymore. Our thinking, and our use of language, have been "occupied" by those who are dominating and controlling us and every aspect of our lives. We do, indeed, "owe our souls to the company store," and our intellects, our creativity, and our very lives.
"Sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older, and deeper in debt." At least there was once a time when we had the cognitive and linguistic tools to describe and express our plight. Now those, too, have been taken from us.
Two Americas,
our ideas are interchangeable and weave their way into media outlets that are broader than say our comment 'forum' here at commondreams. memes spread quickly. i want to thank you for the historical reference and for sharing links that corroborate your ideas.
RT news had 2 references in there news cycle to the possibility of americans having a john brown moment (actually several days after your reference on the 2nd hedges article dealing with 'black bloc' tactics).
Keiser Report: Tombstone Austerity (E249) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To7NYP62opU
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i transcribed the interview, b/c i realize many never open up links.
interview max keiser (mk) - james howard kunstler (kuntsler)… min. 13:10 - 25:45
(13:51) - (mk) the american people never tire of being snickered
(14:48) - what is it in the american factor that makes them feel good about getting screwed ? mk
(kuntsler) my own theory is that american life is just so frantic, with people struggling very hard to make a living and by being distracted by every kind of electronic show and program and entertainment conceivable.
the cognitive dissonance, the collective noise in our brains is so immense that we can't really reflect on everything that is happening to us. however, going back to some previous conversations that we had where i scolded you for making revolutionary remarks, i'm beginning to wonder if we're going to get what i would call a john brown moment (15:30).
and john brown for those of you who might have a fragmentary memory of american history was that fellow who in the late 1850's mounted an insurrection at harpers ferry and really changed the tone and tenor about the national debate about what we were going to do about that big problem of the time, which was were we going to continue to be slave holders or not. he galvanized the attention of the nation and about two years we were in the civil war - the greatest convulsion that the US ever went through.
and so i'm wondering now, when will the john brown moment come for financial misdeeds/deviant behavior. you know it's not only unseemly, unethical, criminal and bad. but, it's really hurting this nation terribly.
(1630) - (mk) the revolution in tunisia started w/ one fruit seller, the french revolution started w/ one girl - talking about the price of bread giong up, and talk about john brown - one individual - starting the revolution back in the US in that time.
in north africa, the more information people got the more they became upset, the satellite photos in tunisia of how the top 1% was living, got the people upset. in the us, however, the more information people receive - julian assange and wikileaks - the more docile they become (17:00) the information makes people just want to crawl up into a fetal position and hope it all just goes away - isn't it, is it drugs in the water ? is it obesity ? is it too much football, is it de-evolution ? are americans .... it appears as though thought, the mindset of the average american is devolving...
(Kuntsler) - there are number of things going on that revolve around the question of authority and legitimacy. and especially of the news media... i personally find myself allergic to conspiracy theories and i don't think there is a media conspiracy to keep the american people ignorant, but their certainly doing a terrible job of reporting.
you wonder why the so called thought leaders at places like the WSJ and the NYT's - haven't reacted to all the shenanigans going on w/ the NY attorney general and the task force for mortgage fraud and the smoke scene at the dept of justice. there just not paying attention, so we're seeing some kind of an epochal failure of people in charge. it's like 'control fraud' itself. (18:30)
(19:09) - (mk) - you say there's no conspiracy but people who watch fox news are less informed than people who watch no news ? so clearly the fox people know that if you have a population that is dumbed down by purposefully inflating the debate with lies, deception and fraud. then, that's a population that you can steer by the nose in any direction you want them to go.
(20:11) - (mk) - chris hedges believes that part of the reason the ndaa was passed is b/c the banks are going to collapse and bankers don't trust the police to maintain order so they want to give the military some boosted powers in the US because they see this thing collapsing and they want protection from the mob, your thoughts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...peace...
oh right forgot the rest, sorry....
(19:57) - (kuntsler) - .... i would imagine the problem a little differently, i think that there's a general sense of nervousness throughout the whole culture, that it's not just the bankers, that it's really that everybody in any sort of authority is so nervous about the failures that they brought about.
they really no longer trust the system to keep on running and they're taking extraordinary measures. in regards to your previous statement about fox news...when i was a journalist i investigated religious cults and political cults and one of the things that impressed me was how a group of people could simply subscribe to a bundle of ideas or shall we say programming. there whole mental program was then set and they didn't have to review any of their beliefs and i think that's happened to a tremendous extent now in our culture.
(21:34) - is there any connection b/w the curtailment of civil liberties and peak resources/peak oil ?
(21:38) - (kuntsler) well there's certainly a connection b/w all of these enormous looming issues. the failure of capital finance. the failure of civil order and the faith that we can run a civil society and the availability of the vital resources that we need to have an economy that continues to grow and produce the ability to do things like service debt. so yes these things are intimately connected
(22:30) -alright james kuntsler, here's another curious thing. there's a washington post article with a democrat in office, the anti war movement made up of mostly of democrats has declined drastically. they are apparently fine with the wars while their team is in so to speak, what's that all about ?
(22:42) -- (kuntsler) - it probably again is a question of authority. if you
identify yourself as a democrat or a progressive and your party is carrying out the wars and doing it in a way, where you know there's no draft so people aren't being dragged off against their will. they're volunteering.
in fact it really is a job center for that disappearing cohort of young men especially, who need to work with their hands, and can't go to work in a factory, or can no longer build houses or do other construction work - so they work with their hands killing people in other lands. probably it's regarded as a kind of a jobs program.
(23.07) - right and they go to these wars and they often lose their hands and then goldman sachs ....profit in another way on the death and misery of poor US servicemen sent to do goldman sachs' dirty work.
there's another war the ongoing financial war and once again strangely the democratic voters don't mind the financial crimes b/c once again their guy obama is in office so somehow, like when i listen to bill mahrer on hbo, no matter what financial crimes are committed... he reparrots the same stupidity that comes out of the white house ..... they don't seem to understand what the crime is. is it just financial illiteracy on that huffpo side of the aisle ?
(2419) - - (kuntsler) - i don't think so. certainly all sides of the political spectrum... thomas frank asked the question why do voters vote against their interests. but, the situation has changed a few years later and what were seeing now is a lot worse than that, what were seeing is now a comprehensive failure of leadership and not just in politics which is just the most visible type of leadership. but, comprehensively through american lfe and to some extent western life. a failure of leadership in politics, business, in the media, in the clergy, in education at every level. that makes for a very nervous society (25:15).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...peace...
Thanks for that. Very interesting.
The state commits aggressive violence regardless of the behavior of the oppressed and needs no justification. Agent provocateurs will always provide the violence. Agent provocateurs may look like security forces or protesters. I do support a strictly enforced dress code for violent protesters, no black masks, tope may be acceptable, with matching designer gas masks, also everyone should have a bold mauve SS number on their backs.
I have trouble following the logic of the nonviolent argument...
violence doesn't seem to have much trouble achieving desired ends...
to claim the superiority of the continually losing position is odd...
perhaps we will, one day, confront the fact that the nonviolent bargaining position has no base, as they have no land or resources not granted them by the violent?
we acquiesce, and pay the violent...
that is the nonviolent response...
as they would have it...
until they no longer desire our company...
articles like this make me consider the author utterly deluded...
So long as humans tolerate, even support, violence against other animals, we will always reap what we sow.
"What Were Wars?" Don't Blame Other Animals For Human Violence
By Marc Bekoff
Created Jan 22 2012 - 7:29am
Human's long-time and rampant obsession with making war is well-known, as is some people's claims that because we are animals it's natural to behave in these violently destructive ways. John Horgan's recent book, The End of War, is a worthy read, in which it's made clear that war is a choice that some people make and is not part of who we (or other animals) are - it is not innate. Horgan argues, "I believe war will end for scientific reasons; I believe war will must end for moral reasons" (p. 19). Others agree with his general message (see also and).
Regardless of mounting scientific evidence that non-humans are predominantly cooperative, peaceful, and fair and on occasion display social justice (see also and), media hype portrays other animals as being far more violent and war-like than they really are. This includes a recent movie called "The Grey." Why is it that blood, rather than peace, sells?
I concluded an earlier essay as follows: "People who claim nonhuman animals are inherently aggressive and warlike are wrong. So, when they use information from animal studies to justify our own cruel, evil, and warlike behavior, they're not paying attention to what we really know about the social life of animals. Do animals fight with one another? Yes. Do they routinely engage in cruel, warlike behavior? Not at all. Numerous species display wild justice and carefully negotiate their social relationships so that fairness, cooperation, compassion, and empathy are quite common.
In another essay called "Quitting the hominid fight club Horgan concluded, "All told, since Jane Goodall began observing chimpanzees in Tanzania's Gombe National Park in 1960, researchers have directly observed 31 intergroup killings, of which 17 were infants.... researchers at a typical site directly observe one killing every seven years ... my criticism - and that of other critics I've cited - stems from science, not ideology." (the italics are mine)
Warlike animals are the rare exception, not the rule, and this must be factored into our own rationalizations and justifications for our seeming obsession with making war. War is a choice and non-human animals should not be blamed for our destructive inclinations.
When we say to someone, "Oh, you're behaving like an animal" it's actually a complement rather than an insult. We need to work for a science of peace and build a culture of empathy, and emphasize the postiive, prosocial (voluntary behavior to benefit another), side of the character of other animals and ourselves. It's truly who we and other animals are.
The quotation in the title of this essay, taken from Horgan's book (p. 182), should give us all hope for the future. Imagine the day when a child asks "What were wars?" This thought makes me sit back and smile, and it is indeed a possibility.
Can we please move on beyond invoking "human" dignity and acknowledge the quiet dignity of other animals?
I'm a horseman, on a good day.
No horse ever started a war.
But a lot of horse's asses have.
sj
I agree that human mass violence arises from the enslavement of animals, which led to growing populations, then wars for more land or for other people's cattle. We don't know why humans started agriculture and animal husbandry, but it probably related to a disastrous starvation time. For thousands of years after the the dawn of agriculture, humans have been much smaller than our pre-agriculture ancestors. Modern 21st century humans are still slightly smaller on average than our pre-agriculture modern humans.
Many anthropologists doubt the validity of our chimpanzee observations because by the time Goddall and others started to observe chimps, they had lost most of their natural habitat and lived in very restricted areas. Like crowding rats in a cage.
For similar reasons, observations of human nature in today's world have to take into account overcrowding. For millions of years hominids lived in small population groups with access to vast resources. Pre-agricultural humans had fitness levels rivaling or exceeding Olympic athletes and as a result most of the women probably had amenorrhea, or lack of menstruation, a condition that affects top women athletes. That would have kept the birthrate down and thus they had steady state populations. I think this may relate to the small Venus statues found in ancient finds, because pregnancy and childbirth were much rarer and thus much more venerated. Each human had real value because of their relative scarcity.
But agriculture and animal enslavement not only produced more, albeit inferior, food, it also made people much less fit and as a result women became much more fertile. Population soared and wars became mankind's way of life (I use mankind deliberately, because men make it).
knock knock...
"hello, who's there ?"
- "my name is officer, take youawayforever"
"officer, how can i help you ?"
- "well we have identified you, using facial recognition technology and drone surveillance, as a participant in the demonstration against the corporations last week in the park, and i'm here to arrest you for trespassing."
"who are you, is that military insignia on your sleeve ?"
- "who i am is irrelevant, you are one of the non violent demonstrators we saw in the park last week, correct ? you refused to stand up to the police b/c you felt... in the words of your post on the blog CD... that violence doesn't accomplish anything, correct ???
"of course, i'm a non violent demonstrator - see the picture of jesus on my wall ?"
- "you know mam, i'm not too concerned about whether you call your self violent or non violent, that's a matter you can take up with your priest, all i want you to do is come with me. ok ?? of course it's ok, b/c we have footage of you running away from the demonstration. in fact the reason i'm here is b/c you're non violent. kapeesh ? so... gather your composure and come with me please."
"what i'm i being charged with ?"
- "is that really relevant ? no, your activities have been monitored (we noticed you purchased organic goat cheese last week at the co-op) and we are investigating a few crimes (trespassing in our park is illegal) and we just want to take you downtown and you know - interrogate you. you're ok with that right ? i mean your a non violent person."
"can i take my phone with me or make a call first ?"
- "of course not, in fact give me that phone please, thank you - we're going to need to extract some data from your rfid chip in the phone. don't worry though, after we arrest you we're going to systematically examine every aspect of your life starting w/ the assorted belongings here in this apartment, but we'll be considerate of your space. ok ?"
-----------
6 months later....
"jailer, jailer i don't mean to trouble you but has anyone contacted my attorney yet ??"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...peace...
Those who aren't prepared will regret not heeding your comment.
Chicago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEFsBF1X1ow
Though your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to Chicago
Just to sing
In a land that's known as freedom
How can such a thing be fair
Won't you plaese come to Chicago
For the help we can bring
We can change the world -
Re-arrange the world
It's dying - to get better
Politicians sit yourself down,
There's nothing for you here
Won't you please come to Chicago
For a ride
Don't ask Jack to help you
Cause he'll turn the other ear
Won't you please come to Chicago
Or else join the other side
We can change the world -
Re-arrange the world
It's dying - if you believe in justice
It's dying - and if you believe in freedom
It's dying - let a man live it's own life
It's dying - rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door
Somehow people must be free
I hope the day comes soon
Won't you please come to Chicago
Show your face
From the bottom to the ocean
To the mountains of the moon
Won't you please come to Chicago
No one else can take your place
We can change the world -
Re-arrange the world
It's dying - if you believe in justice
It's dying - and if you believe in freedom
It's dying - let a man live it's own life
It's dying - rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door
We can change the world
- grahm nash 1970
...peace...
THANK YOU
I refuse to equate the destruction of inanimate objects with violence. They are not the same. It is the State that tries to define it as such and this because, as others have suggested, the State has elevated property above people.
If I kick my cat , that is an act of violence. If i kick my room mate that is an act of violence. If i kick my car door there no violence involved. I do not see how anyone can claim the actions are the same.
Property damage is property damage.It is not violence.
You're entitled to any opinion you wish, but words still do have specific meanings.
Please do read the dictionary definition, which clearly includes violence towards THINGS :
<<" violence
noun
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. ">>
Words have many meanings. If one doesn't believe violence includes acts against property, then it doesn't.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master -- that’s all.”
Sure, that is your opinion and right, to believe that :
"If one doesn't believe violence includes acts against property, then it doesn't."
But, it need not be my own, and it isn't.
Obviously violence doesn't merely exist within the pages of dictionaries -- it exists as the result of how people's destructive (and/or self-defensive) behaviors most often are used to dehumanize and manipulate each other, in the real world.
If I put a fMRI scan on my brain, when passively angry and violent in intention only, and it shows similar violent patterns as when actively angry and violent in real behaviors -- then I've made my point clear.
Violence is in the hitting and yelling (etc …) -- but it is also in the thinking that the other behaviors arose from.
The external consequences of violence, are obviously easy to observe (looking at the victims), but our sick society seemingly represses the crucial idea that internal consequences of violence are present and debilitating (inside both victim and perpetrator).
Clearly we need to have compassion for the victims, but that is so much easier than discovering what it takes in having a greater depth of compassion, to begin to comprehend what causes the perpetrators (and society at large) to act that way.
We cannot solve the problems of systemic violence, by simplistically blaming only the obvious perpetrators and externalizing them somehow as intrinsically evil, when they exist partly as a reflection of how sick our society has become. As Pogo informed us,
"We've met the enemy, and he is us."
This issue is why our growing awareness and our increasing evolution, is all about the long term strategy of somehow getting beyond the cycles of violence, driven by fear.
Love is the antidote to fear
I was at a demonstration one time where someone tried throwing a brick through a window. The brick bounced off the window and hit a bystander in the face, resulting in several stitches. I'm sure property damage seemed violent to her.
Another example: imagine being married to a hothead who starts throwing things and smashing up the place every time he gets angry. He might not actually hit you, but it's still violent, intimidating behavior, even though it's only against inanimate objects.
It's relative, it seems to me. I'm not an absolutist, obviously, and think that property damage and sabotage may have its place -- which even the pacifist ploughshare movement acknowledges. But it is violent, in a way.
Yes, we agree.
My family stems from a non-violent Quaker background, and both of my parents reversed that tradition in WWII jobs serving that quite different purpose, as the needs of the many trumped the needs of the few (themselves).
Personally, I don't see that WWII is that light, now knowing how it was nursed along into existence, and how the rapacious fascist banksters funding Hitler, were none other that bush the lessor's grandpa (Prescott) and 'friends.'
If we'd invaded and captured the Wall-eyed St fascist criminals in the 30s, the much later Normandy invasion (etc) would likely never have been needed.
It's no accident that OWS is essentially at that same level of understanding, of where most of the usurpatious and destructive planning and policies originate (where the criminals are located), that are increasingly killing off us common folks.
I understand the sacred power of non-violence, but similarly I also am aware of the limits that Human beings can be pressed to, when forced to chose between revering all life and protecting loved ones and family.
Mahatma Gandhi broke through India's Partitioning violence, vividly and transformationally, when he challenged an inconsolable and grieving father, to forgive the man that had killed his daughter -- and he did so -- and that entire world turned in mutual understanding of that moment.
That grieving father, had went and begged Gandhi to stop his death-at-the-door fasting, promising he would stop killing -- IF Mahatma would just start eating … and Gandhi challenged him BEYOND, stepping everything up to a stratospheric level of service to the many, regardless of the suffering and circumstances of the one (or two).
This example illustrates the unbelievably transformational POWER of non-violence, and particularly of love (as a force of nature) and forgiveness.
Consider the reverse, that had that inconsolable and grieving father, dressed himself in black and broken thousands of windows, and/or killed thousands of new victims -- what would have happened to hundreds of millions still at risk, for ever more violence ?
I see so you believe that tearing pages of a newspaper into smaller pieces is an act of violence just as tearing the arms off a person is one?
I do not see how they can be the same even of your dictionary definition indicates it so.
Your DICTIONARY defintion is little more then an example of how language is used to CONDITION peoples.
That definition of violence would not exist 5000 years ago.
The state now claims linking arms together in protest is an act of violence. If that too makes it into your dictionary definition of violence will you cite that as well?
I just bent my fork was that an act of violence? It certainly a THING I damaged,
Think for yourself. What is being dictated by your dictionary is absurd.
I'm sorry that you interpreted my posting as somehow threatening or any reason for you to get angry, and I apologize.
My intent was merely to enlarge the circle of meaningful discussion, to hopefully cast what you said in a larger perspective, that does include what you said while also getting at the issue of how our thinking is tied into habituated cycles of violence.
These are called mental viruses or memes, and can infect and afflict us just as diseases do, in fact, they do so much easier and quickly.
I do think for myself, and personally believe that unhealthy violence occurs far too often in our lives, mostly w/o those consequences being challenged or even remotely comprehended, and that includes purely mental cognitions.
BTW, this is not about "[my] dictionary," it's OUR cultures' dictionary, you know, so that we have a common place to verify the meaning of words in question ?
If I commented, that I find the tone of your reactive words to be somewhat violent, as in attempting to " tear… pages of" what I had said and then ridiculing it -- will that be met with more anger or with your growing sense of compassion ?
Unquestionably, there's an obvious and very important difference when any human suffering occurs, associated with any violent act.
I go much further than you appear willing to go, as our ego's penchant for blame and punishing the guilty, means that our human cognition that is seemingly only focused outwardly, can unknowingly cause self-destructive thoughts and consequences. The perpetrator becomes themselves a victim of violence, as the insidious dehumanizing impacts fall not just upon the so called victim.
Violence is a vicious circle, because it causes fear and further separation, and the article expresses how there is no escape from this, other than non-violence -- particularly when the ultimate goal is transforming society (via paradigm shift).
As far as "an example of how language is used to CONDITION people," the problem is far worse than you state -- because violence is how the state conditions us -- not by forcing us to read dictionary definitions.
Of course, it's absurd that "linking arms together in protest is an act of violence," but that wasn't what I said or would ever believe.
Your example does illustrate how the state manufactures a verbal fog of manipulative obfuscations, to deceitfully hide and twist our awareness away from the fact that MLK so saliently noted (USA as the most violent …).
It's the state that trivializes and callously redefines violence for Machiavellian purposes (our suffering & terror), so that perhaps, that is where both of our attentions need be better focused.
I do support your perfectly understandable anger about how the concept of violence is twisted to suffuse our environment with lies and and obliterate the truth.
What I see, is a broader perspective that better discerns how other debilitating consequences of violence, are so often under appreciated and lacking comprehension of how dehumanizing all violence is.
Do you really believe that ripping up a phone book in anger, has absolutely no consequences to one's psyche (or perhaps to a child's watching you) ?
>>Do you really believe that ripping up a phone book in anger, has absolutely no consequences to one's psyche (or perhaps to a child's watching you) ?
You try to equate anger and violence. They are very different things . One can be VIOLENT without anger. One can be angry without violence. While the two often come coupled together they are not the same.
A person sitting in Nevada that pushes a button that kills 40 people may not feel anger at all but has committed violence. A person blowing up a 40 story building because a new 90 story building going up in its place is neither angry or violent. He is still destroying "property".
I can be angry and destroy an object but that does not mean I am therefore violent or have commited a violent act.
I am going to give an example of a number of native tribes that live in South America. Violence and rapes amongst these tribes are all but unknown. If a member of the tribe feels they are wronged they go to a Shaman. The Shaman suggests they go to the doorstep of the person they think has crossed him and play out their anger. They ask that person to describe violent acts that they imagine committing against that other because they were wronged.
The person will take a spear and go to the others doorstep and "act out" committing an act of violence. They will stab their spear into empty space and say things like "see I am killing you because you have wronged me". They will never COMMIT that act. They act it out.
The anger is channeled out of the person and the other, the one watching that has wronged the person acting out the anger , will know the other angry and feels he has been wronged.
The person who acted out the violence then goes home. purged of his anger and the person who wronged him in the first place feels contrite and shamed over that wrong. They can work and play together the next day without ill feelings.
These tribes can go decades without a physical act of violence commited.
The point of this is anger is a REAL thing we all subject too and it can be channeled . Violence and anger are not the same thing though anger can lead to violence.
The destruction of property might be an act of anger, but it does not mean it an act of violence.
The State wished to redefine what violence is because the State elevates property above all else. They try and suggest that throwing a rock through a window is the same as breaking someones arm. They use this so they can JUSTIFY commiting acts of real violence against the people , this by sending in police to beat people with truncheons because the people are breaking windows.
This the meme they use to protect the wealthy "owner class". Destruction of PROPERTY is the same as violence against an individual and thus can be treated the same.
I have two cats sitting here. They are not part of human definitions of words. If I rip up a phone book even in anger they will simply sit and watch. If i committed an act of physical violence against the other cat, the remaining one will run. They know the difference.They dont read dictionaries.
Now you also suggested that the dictionary definition of a word is pertinent because it what our CULTURES have agreed upon.
I can not subsribe to that theory. A Culture might decide "inferiority" is related top ones skins color and define it that way. I am not going to agree with this even though the Culture I live in says it is so. What is learned and cultural behaviour or practices is not necessarily a truth. It is up to us as individuals not to simplt accept cultural memes as truths.
The destruction of property is NOT violence.
If I am "angry" because I am opposed to wars and hate seeing children in Afghanistan killed by bombs dropped from airplanes and I destroy an Jet Aircraft sitting on a tarmac, I have not committed "Violence"
Your example of blowing up a 40 story building because a new 90 story building going up in its place raises a very interesting point.
Property - both man-made and natural - is destroyed all of the time in this country, on a massive scale - in the cause of profit seeking. Everything gets chewed up and destroyed - all for the cause of profit seeking. Yet there is all of the uproar here about supposed anarchists throwing a rock through a window. How twisted and distorted must people's perceptions of reality be for that to be the case?
Beyond that, human beings here and around the world are destroyed all of the time by people from this country, on a massive scale - all for the cause of profit seeking.
Don't throw a rock through a window, because that would be cultivating a violent mentality, we are told, yet at the same time we are told not to suggest overturning the profit model for social organization.
There is something wrong with the people in this country, seriously wrong. And yes, I am "painting with a broad brush," because I think it is pervasive and we are all contaminated with it, infected to one degree or another with some sort of mass insanity.
Yes another example might be the Capitalist blowing up a mountain to get at the coal underneath and an activist destroying the railroad line to that mountain that hauls the coal away buy tearing up the rails.
They are either both acts of violence or they are not. Given that the mountain has streams trees and wildlife that relies on it for survival (life) , I would suggest the former a truer act of violence as it violence against life.
Sioux Rose descibe very often how truth gets inverted. This is just another example of that where the state will claim the person who tears up railroad ties "violent" and those destroying the ,ountain simply exerting their proeprty rights.
You mention the term "property rights," which got me to thinking. I think most people focus on the first word, "property," and then imagine that jettisoning property rights would mean that they couldn't keep their personal stuff. But it is the second word that is important - "rights." What "property rights" really means that those with more access to capital have a right to control and dominate others. It is not at all about "having" stuff, rather it is about taking away things from people and keeping them in a state of deprivation.
"Property rights" means the opposite of what people think it means. It is not about any right to have stuff, it is about having the right to take from other people.
There is that which you need, that which you use, and that which you made. "Property rights" is a threat to all three, while being presented as a way to get all three, or protect all three.
"Property rights" is a means by which physical objects are valued more highly than human life. But even that does nit fully describe the insanity, since everything of value eventually gets destroyed in the process.
"Property rights" is not about having stuff, using stuff, saving stuff, preserving stuff, or valuing stuff. It is about social arrangements and conventions that allow the few to totally control and dominate the many, and to destroy anything and everything in the cause of maintaining that control and domination over others.
Once again, your little buried but twisted messages pop out of the void, seemingly representing and normalizing a common world and viewpoint that we all inhabit.
You erroneously conflate NOT breaking windows, with some folks advocating passive subservience to despotic ruination, when stating :
"Don't throw a rock through a window, because that would be cultivating a violent mentality, we are told, yet at the same time we are told not to suggest overturning the profit model for social organization."
Can you please explain who voices this coupled "same time" deception "we are told not to suggest overturning the profit model for social organization" ?
As far as I've read, progressive people like Chris Hedges who opposes the BB's violence as ineffective and counterproductive, says EXACTLY the opposite that we MUST both "suggest" and act in "overturning the profit model for social organization."
Where is the real world person that you've heard that BOTH opposes BB's violence AND tells everyone to passively accept rapacious usurpation, ruining and driving us and the world itself, ever faster toward Oblivion ?
Sure, most people do understand that "There is something wrong with the people in this country, seriously wrong," but who specifically publicly makes that clear, that :
1. understands that angst
2. advocates against violent protest, and
3. coaches subservient acquiescence ?
Sure, our culture of "pervasive" violence is habituated into a materialistic course of consumptive abandonment, of all that's truly sacred and valuable.
Sure, I can agree (propaganda's fruit, reactivity -- 'doing the same thing again and again, each time expecting a different result' ="insanity"=) that we're "infected to one degree or another with some sort of mass insanity," so please do explain how your conflation diminishes or heals that baneful existence.
Especially, when from my point of view you are promulgating a disheartening, discouraging, and hopeless mishmash -- where the subtle insinuation is -- that violence is necessarily the way to obtain mandatory social evolution, in "overturning the profit model."
I was not responding to you.
That's evasive and rude, and doesn't rise even close to a level of being socially 'Fine.'
And I was more interested in what others have to think ( perhaps likely to say) about my comments and penetrating question … because your M.O. is to act either offended and/or unable to comprehend what is happening.
Particularly because you likely have no reasonable response (the name of a particular real person) to my challenge to your earlier CONTRIVED point, to wit :
<<"Can you please explain who voices this coupled "same time" deception "we are told not to suggest overturning the profit model for social organization" ?">>
Perhaps your ANGER towards me
… stems directly more so from my asking you questions that you either are incapable, or is it merely unwilling to answer ?
Why is this question
… something that apparently terrifies you
… into distasteful rudeness ?
Particularly, when simplistic bafflement (you loss me) is your usual pattern of evasive and dismissal ?
Where you just hoping that folks merely skimming the comments, would skip my own, as a result of your judgmental tone, indicating that I MUST have done something reprehensible, to rile someone as seemingly kind and understanding as you ?
BTW, since this sub-thread is entirely a child of one of my postings, what right do you have to censor me for commenting -- anywhere -- for that matter ?
Who appointed you the absolute
KING of KOMMENTING
__ ? __ ? __ ? __ ? __
You said I was harming you with my posts. I don't want to cause you any further distress, so I am not responding directly to your posts anymore. Yet now you complain about that, and continue to attack me.