Click on the title above, and it will take you to a PDF of an old anti-Vietnam War leaflet.
Spent Sunday night at my mother’s and she had found it in her storage. Simple black and white thing – no graphics. My parents believe it may have been the first anti-Vietnam war leaflet in San Francisco. It was their creation.
They first pulled it out when I was in high school. Having read some of the SWP stuff I was bringing home – triggering bad memories of their own run-ins with the SWP and similar groups back in the 60s and early 70s, they took it out to show me how political literature ought to be written.
But first a little history. Note that the group members all put their names, addresses, and phone numbers on the back. Naivete. They learned quickly that it was a bad idea. Note that there are four Kirks on the list. Evelyn, my aunt, died a few years back.
At least one other person on the list, Gayle Figueroa, was a family friend who died just a couple of years after this leaflet was printed. Joseph (now goes by Jose) is still alive and kicking.
My parents don’t remember much about the others on the list, except that they were all in their late 20s or older – some of them from radical families and others Civil Rights Movement veterans (with plenty of overlap between the two). Ace Delosada was a bit older, and was active in the CIO before it merged with the AFL – I know this from an old library archived newspaper article I found online.
There was plenty of political activity in Berkeley at the time, largely the Free Speech Movement on campus, as follow-up to the CORE activities against job discrimination in grocery stores and the anti-HUAC demonstration which radicalized so many of them at City Hall. There was not much outside of labor happening in San Francisco. The North Beach scene was never really political in anything other than a cultural way, and the Haight Ashbury was just starting to percolate. I did not know until I saw this leaflet again (and didn’t notice it 30 years ago) that my parents had moved us from Mill Valley to Castro Street. By the time I was two, we lived on Cole Street in the Haight (and left for Moss Beach and the Blue Lady well before the Summer of Love when I was three). So this leaflet was printed in 1965 or perhaps early 1966.
And it generated an enormous response.
These were older activists – some of them seasoned. Grounded. And they understood the Socratic approach to rhetoric. I think it is one of the best written leaflets I’ve seen. It doesn’t tell you how to think. It’s primarily a series of questions. Designed to simply make you think. It avoids words like “imperialism.” And it avoids slogans like “Say No to the War in Vietnam!” It invites the reader to find his/her own voice. It respects the reader.
And the activists who understand this concept are far and few. Part of the reason I was drawn into the Christian left movements, even before I seriously considered religion itself, was the approach of humility and respect sometimes lacking in the secular movements, particularly in the hard old and new left milieus.
Still, the leaflet resulted in threatening phone calls, and other harassment. But the group grew rather quickly.
The group that formed would evolve into the San Francisco contingent of what would become known as The Peace and Freedom Party. My parents didn’t stay involved. They thought that Eldritch Cleaver was a bad choice to run for President in 1968, but supported him anyway. By 1972, they were supporting McGovern even though they liked the P&F candidate – Dr. Benjamin Spock. When I want to cast a protest vote because the Democrat is too conservative or otherwise undesirable, I opt for the P&F Party candidate more often than the Green, and I wish they would merge. We don’t need our fringe groups splintered at the ballot.
Anyway, just thought I would share.

92 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 19, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Forest Queen
All wars are bankster’s wars. They fund both sides.
February 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm
jr
Eric: Thank you for sharing this. The California Historical Society might be interested in this for their collection. Also, what is SWP?
February 19, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Eric Kirk
Socialist Workers Party. I joined up as a junior in high school. Quit in the senior year. My parents weren’t going to forbid me from being in a sectarian group famous for disrupting meetings and getting legit movements discredited with their craziness, but they weren’t happy about it.
February 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Thomas Alan Hanson
I am one of those despised protestors who opposed the war —- not because it was immoral, but because it was unwinnable. There was nothing “immoral” about helping the South Vietnamese preserve their independence from the communist North. Unfortunately (for our soldiers, for the hundreds of thousands of future boat people), the ruthless fanaticism of the North coupled with the traitorous support of the Viet Cong in the South coiuld not succumb to our military might. I agree that the pamphlet was well-written, and I admire its tone (and a respectful tone was a rarity back then). I simply would have expressed my opposition to the war in different terms.
February 19, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s hard to separate the two concepts Thomas. It was unwinnable because the support for the Viet Cong in the south was considerable. Perhaps it was “traitorous” for so many in the south to support them, or maybe the South Vietnamese regime was so despised that you can put the traitorous label on them. Yes, it was worse for the southern residents later, certainly in terms of body counts, but hindsight is everything. What they knew is that they had a US-backed brutal regime and they wanted something else. Maybe it would have been more “winnable” if we had a better regime to support. Then again, it might not have been necessary because the Viet Cong would have held little or no appeal. It is telling that we were afraid to allow elections dating back into the 1950s.
February 19, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Anonymous
I’m certain that there were anti-Vietnam war leaflets earlier even if there was not a concerted organizational effort. There was also San Francisco State which wasn’t as active as Berkeley at that point but still active. And San Francisco had a long history of socialist and communist activism. I’m sure they put something out when Johnson escalated the war in 1964.
But this might have been the first active group not associated with a political party.
February 19, 2013 at 4:31 pm
Thomas Alan Hanson
I recommend Michael Lind’s section ‘The Myth of the All-Vietnamese Election” in his book ‘Vietnam: the Necessary War.” Among other reasons why this is a canard is the fact that the communist North had more inhabitants than the noncommunist South. Why would the South have participated in an election that would have made them part of a Stalinist state? And does anyone seriously believe that the North would have permitted a free and open electoral process?
February 19, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Eric Kirk
I actually have the book, but haven’t read it yet. But didn’t the talks about a universal election include for constitutional provisions and a guaranteed balance in the military for several decades? It’s been a couple of decades since I’ve read anything on this stuff.
February 19, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Thomas Alan Hanson
The section on the “election” is on pages 148-150. According to Lind, N. Vietnam, S. Vietnam, and the US did not subscribe to the Geneva Agreements (and he provides documentation, of course). Why would the govt. of the South agree to political suicide? ——– Lind’s book, admirable though it is, did not convince me that I should have remained a hawk through the late 60s and early 70s. As an argument, it scores a lot of points —- but the extreme amount of blood shed over there outweighs his skillful rhetoric.
February 19, 2013 at 7:28 pm
Anonymous
Extreme bloodshed has a tendency to do that.
February 19, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Unk John
@TAH, I’d like to say that back in the day, I wouldn’t have given a rat’s ass what your reason was, the idea was to get as many people out in the streets as possible. You were a welcome addition.
Yes, you are right, the war was not winnable, but I’m stickin’ with the side that finds hints of immorality in this. I am in agreement with Eric’s implied assessment that the non-winnable aspect was a direct result of immorality on our side of the conflict. You seem to look at our involvement as a humanitarian attempt to save people from harm. It was certainly touted as such. I have no doubt that people here wanted to support such a cause and rightly so. Except for the fact that it wasn’t our country.
You were upfront about your feelings on whether or not the war was immoral when you said,
“There was nothing “immoral” about helping the South Vietnamese preserve their independence from the communist North.”
I can agree with the sentiment, but the statement itself is fraught with difficulties for me. There is a lot going on in there.
February 19, 2013 at 10:39 pm
Eric Kirk
There is a lot in there. One thing Marxism learned early in the 20t,h century was that nationalism is stronger than ideology, and it was nationalism that Marxism tapped into in that particular war – successfully. Was it traitorous to want a unified Vietnam? Because I think that was the primary impulse behind the southern opposition to their own regime and our occupation.
But it is a discussion worth having in light of the bloody aftermath. It might not have been quite as bad as Cambodia’s Year Zero, but it was bad enough that iconic war opponent Joan Baez experienced an existential moment and tried to rally support for victims under the incoming regime – and was vilified by much of the left for it.
February 20, 2013 at 7:50 am
Thomas Alan Hanson
“It wasn’t our country” — agreed. Nor was the North American continent France’s country when it provided soldiers in our battle against England. Nor is Mali France’s country today. “Hints of immorality”? You’ll find them in every human endeavour, and it’s always gratifying to label someone else’s actions “immoral.” Was it immoral to rescue Kuwait from Saddam Hussein? Most of my friends seemed to think so, but I never found their reasons convincing. (“It isn’t our country; it’s all about oil.”) How many of them might change their minds if they still thought about the matter? Would they admit error, as Barney Frank recently did in ‘Time’ magazine? (Question: What one do-over would you like? B. Frank: I would have voted for the first Iraq War. I voted against it because I was afraid that George Bush the father was going to behave the way G. Bush the son behaved. Now I regard the first Iraq War as a very successful and appropriate use of American power. — Sept. 10, 2012 issue, p. 64). —————————-If our side had prevailed in S. Vietnam, we would not be debating the war. The question of the war’s morality would not arise. It would be a given that our use of force was necessary and just.
February 20, 2013 at 9:18 am
Mitch
If our side had prevailed in S. Vietnam, we would not be debating the war.
Sad to say, TAH is probably correct. But how many Vietnamese would have died, so that we might have saved them from the eternal communism that has so doomed the peasants of China?
February 20, 2013 at 9:28 am
Eric Kirk
Thomas – the first Iraq War had a little more of an argument for justification – it was one country invading another. Arguably this was a civil war, and but for the ideological and geopolitical ramifications, we would not have been involved. The best argument one can make is that since the Soviet Union was helping one side, we should help the other. But our involvement was considerably more extensive than the Soviet Union’s.
February 20, 2013 at 9:56 am
Forest Queen
Are you guys standing on your heads looking backwards in the mirror? Thought so.
February 20, 2013 at 10:07 am
Eric Kirk
Forest Queen – if by that do you mean that we should discuss and learn from history, I guess the answer is “yes.”
February 20, 2013 at 10:19 am
Just Watchin
Forest Queen never knows exactly what she means.
February 20, 2013 at 10:30 am
Not A Native
Thomas, I pretty much agree with your analysis about winnability. But as Eric alludes to, the war was largely “sold” in the context of the cold war domino theory. The spectre was always “Red Chinese hordes” arriving on US shores. I really don’t recall very much early concern officially expressed about the Vietnamese, except as proxies for what would be in store for Americans(supposedly previewed by the Gulf of Tonkin incident). And that idea is still alive and flourishing in the US body politic
It was a blatantly selfish war on the part of the US, with only lip service paid to the Vietnamese. I believe that’s a prime reason atrocities were sanctioned by military leaders even after the hearts and minds strategy was conceived as a last ditch effort. We’re still paying the cost today of rank and file soldier’s ‘cognitive dissonance’ over the conflict of what they thought was their mission and what they were actually doing. Personally , I think the issue over Chuck Hagel’s confirmation is about the possibility of a future official confronting/debate of the immorality of how a faction within the US wants to use military power.
i can typing
February 20, 2013 at 10:44 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Eric, great explanation here, “These were older activists – some of them seasoned. Grounded. And they understood the Socratic approach to rhetoric. I think it is one of the best written leaflets I’ve seen. It doesn’t tell you how to think. It’s primarily a series of questions. Designed to simply make you think. It avoids words like “imperialism.” And it avoids slogans like “Say No to the War in Vietnam!” It invites the reader to find his/her own voice. It respects the reader.”
Forrest Queen – Yes on bankster SCUM! Even bankster scum works here locally, making mistakes and charging the customer base. Not to be sexist, but banks love hiring mostly women and dumbed down men at the lower employee levels to do its dirty work because women don’t tend to care about who and what they support through their job, only nice clothing, perfumes and such…same with insurance companies. These are jobs, but not really hard work like outside work that the “real women partake in” and that “real men partake in”. Would love to see a lower bank employee be forced to soil their finger nails in grit and grime, out in the cold where weather conditions make the job miserable at times.
Also, in South Vietnam, some were traitors because they hated moreso that American military might was in their “cultural fight”.
Sincerely,
HOJ
P.S. HOJ is not sexist, but very much a realist based upon facts. Yet, whenever someone discusses certain truths regarding men or women, the sexist label, or the “you hate women label” comes out. The latest e-mail HOJ received was about FIFA soocer video games and some petition about “why are not women in any of the games”. HOJ simply returned a response suggesting that maybe the protestors petitioning should open their own business to make a game with women in it. The sexist nature of this country works on both sides, men and women, but men are the ones to normally get bitched at for saying something about the inequalities and the relationship of gender and jobs, gender and business, gender and consumptive practices. Oh well, facts are facts, but a certain gender gets all “wah wah” when discussed.
February 20, 2013 at 11:22 am
Eric Kirk
NAN – it does beg the question however. That the motives were impure or even just plain whacked does not necessarily address whether the action is a good idea. There were plenty of selfish or even “imperialist” motivations to oppose the Nazi regime in World War II. That does not negate the necessity of that war on moral or practical grounds.
But in this case, I wonder if our involvement slowed the takeover of Vietnam by the northern regime, or made it inevitable. That is a practical question again, though the moral issues obviously overlap.
February 20, 2013 at 11:36 am
Thomas Alan Hanson
“A blatantly selfish war”? In a sense, that is accurate. U.S. policy-makers hoped to create a world without communist dominance, and Vietnam was one battle in that struggle. The Marshall Plan after WWII was likewise motivated by a selfish desire to lessen the appeal of communism and to create markets for American products in Western Europe. And Mother Teresa was spurred to acts of benevolence by her ardent desire to enter heaven. Enlightened self-interest is nothing to sneeze at! Especially when the record of communism is examined. This is the first sentence in a review of a new book entitled ‘Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962:’ “A growing scholarly literature has left no doubt that the greatest famine in history, with a death toll of around 36 million Chinese, was caused not by natural disasters but by excessive state levies ordered by Chairman Mao Zedong” (Foreign Affairs, the current issue, p.202). —————————-Fighting to rid the world of such regimes may indeed be selfish, but show me a person or a country without an ego and I’ll probably be looking at a corpse.
February 20, 2013 at 11:56 am
Forest Queen
Eric,
Sure, yeah . . .whose/what perspective shall we “view” it from that will “change-the-course-of-history?” It’s always ‘follow the money, huh?’We can continue documenting our destruction, or we can mount a resistance.
HOJ,
Notice in my above here that I didn’t say. . .course of HIS story You can defend your non-sexist (?) label . . .I d No wah, wah here. Is non-sex like sexless? Like angels?
ue to ‘sun-flare’ I’m guessing – no posting from me.
February 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Unk John
@TAH: I don’t think we have much of a disagreement here. You and I agree on much, but my view of the war in Viet Nam is simple.
The people in control on this side saw a way to make much bucks and got a lot of people in my generation killed while doing it. That’s what I mean by immorality.
And yes, I am still pissed about it, as I’m sure you are.
February 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Unk John
BTW, Eric, I don’t believe they did this until you guys lived on Eureka St.
February 20, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Eric Kirk
I don’t think so Unk John. We lived on Cole Street when I was two, and then in Moss Beach when I was three. I was barely one when they lived on Castro, above the cleaners. Also, they were deep into Peace and Freedom Party politics by 1968 (the Cleaver campaign, and the free all of the BPP leaders campaigns had pretty much taken over), and had already helped organize the Vietnam Day Demonstrations. And I think Gayle had already passed away. With the sectarians involved, this leaflet wouldn’t have stood a chance.
February 20, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Not A Native
A response to the ‘real politik” arguments that if bad motives result in some benefit, its all for the good. Its more ends justifying the means and devolves to we had to bomb the village to save it. Well, we have VW’s today thanks to Adolph Hitler, so I guess he should be credited? Science still uses data taken by the medical experiments in concentration camps. I just don’t agree with those arguments because they’re all retrospectively based. Sure, flowers grow out of manure. But thats not a moral justification to crap in somelse’s garden.
We’re here today, and thats a good thing. So EVERY past event can be said to have ‘some good’ in it because we are a result of it all. To me, taking that path is just a too easy rationalization that provides zero restraints right now on those who propose actions that pander to selfishness.
I give more credit to human ability to know and be responsible for the proximate effects of our acts. And I find an obligation to actively create the good and not excuse malice that can always be viewed, in retrospect, as having caused some unexpected good. Otherwise, there’s room to excuse the rapist because a beautiful child was the result.
I can typing
February 20, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Thomas Alan Hanson
I see a plurality of motives that brought about our involvement, and profit was probably not absent —- people make money from the “war on cancer,” after all. It can be hard to inhabit the Cold War years psychologically as the epoch recedes into history, but reading contemporaneous writings can evoke the genuine fears of a collectivist future. To my mind, that fear (which now appears hugely exaggerated, after Gorbachev) was the root cause of our misguided venture in Vietnam. I am “pissed” because our leaders misread the arc of history — they dragged us into a stupid war, just as G.W. Bush stupidly invaded Iraq. In both cases, an underinformed idealism was at work, and the enormity of the means was underestimated as the imminence of the end was taken for granted. Harley-Davidson now has a sparkling showroom in Ho Chi Minh City and I buy shirts stitched in Vietnam. The dominos stopped falling in the late 1980s. But ascribing only sordid motives to our political opponents is too self-congratulatory. I wish the N. Vietnamese had been repelled. The student I had at UC-Berkeley who wrote ALL his papers on his experience as a Boat Person would have had another subject on which to demonstrate his mastery of French.
February 20, 2013 at 5:48 pm
ED Denson
Probably we should have backed Uncle Ho in 1946 when he wanted independence. But what’s done is done. I was in Saigon a year or two ago (1st visit to Vietnam) and got a great shirt. I wanted to go there with the lawyers group and teach for a couple of weeks, but the Vietnamese would not accept anyone over 65 as part of those groups (did that relate to the war, or health concerns???). Our local tourist herder who narrated our bus ride from the ship to the city said he wished the northerners had not come, and still called the city Saigon. Footnotes for the discussions above.
February 20, 2013 at 7:38 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Forrest Queen,
Simply was just agreeing with you on Bankster scum and how they fund both sides of any/all wars. Yet, another input could also be the elected official scumbags in many nations, including here at home in fascist USA.
Sicnerely,
HOJ
February 20, 2013 at 7:43 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
NAN,
Good post @ 3:10 pm
Thanks,
HOJ
February 20, 2013 at 8:41 pm
Unk John
My mistake, Eric. It was earlier.
TAH, again I will not take issue with your position. However, I will remain suspicious of any statement taking the position that our intervention was either necessary or welcomed by the populace of Viet Nam.
Who was good and who was evil in that war is complicated and we could discuss it all night. I do know, though, that Ho was quite fond of our revolution and did express a desire to emulate what happened here. The fact that he ran a communist regime got in the way as far as we were concerned.
Our guy in the south was so well loved by his people that they cornered, and then killed him. That was not a good sign.
The lack of love for Americans in various parts of the world have a lot to do with the on-going stupidity that you have mentioned above. I feel safer when people are not angry with me. I just want the nonsense to stop.
February 20, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Anonymous
Why didn’t South Vietnam hold their own elections?
February 21, 2013 at 11:08 am
Eric Kirk
They did hold a presidential election in 1967 with a very high turnout. It was the first election in over a decade. They held a second one a few years later, but the opposition candidates all cried foul and only the incumbent was on the ballot. Still there was a very high turnout, and I don’t know if it was compulsory like the elections of El Salvador in the 1980s where failing to vote could get you killed. Maybe Tom knows more about it.
February 22, 2013 at 10:07 am
Not A Native
FWIW, this article just appeared, describing exactly the unacknowledged costs of war I mentioned and are particularly associated with Viet Nam. Because of how it ended, that war created less opportunity for US soldiers to personally excuse their actions by the rationalization expressed here ‘ends justifying means’.
Of course, only the more thoughtful and moral soldiers are sensitive to feel angst. But they are exactly the type of people the US desires to field as soldiers to ensue we conduct only ‘moral war’. A military composed of ‘bad apples’ is something that is associated in US minds as synonymous with juntas and tyranny.
http://news.yahoo.com/im-monster-veterans-alone-guilt-081744648.html
February 27, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Anonymous
The fact that we are even discussing whether that war was pure evil shows us that the sixties generation utterly failed.
February 27, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Forest Queen
The “sixties generation” you refer to is still here. We’re still coming down . . to help the blind back up.
February 28, 2013 at 7:49 am
Erasmus
“Whether that war was pure evil” — no, such a notion in an insult to our veterans, and I doubt that even the most insensitive critic of our involvement in that conflict would accuse a former soldier of participating in “pure evil.” The spectacle of Boat People fleeing their native land, preferring the lottery of being adrift at sea to the certain tyranny of communist rule, ought to silence the most loudly self-righteous critics of the war — but, of course, it won’t.
February 28, 2013 at 7:56 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
Fine, it wasn’t “pure evil.” But by the end, it was pretty damned close. Maybe you should relisten to the John Kerry of 1971. No excerpt can do justice to his “Winter Soldier” testimony.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/30/flashback_a_rare_broadcast_of_john
I wish the John Kerry of 1971 was President or Secretary of State.
February 28, 2013 at 8:36 am
Forest Queen
IMHO, ALL wars are pure evil – and I would NEVER ‘notion’ that as an insult to veterans – on either side. I had three brothers ‘engaged’ in war. That was then, this is now – and we should all know better. It’s just business as usual for the banksters.
Secretary of State – NOT Secretary of Nation.
February 28, 2013 at 10:17 am
Erasmus
These words of John Stuart Mill are often quoted, and I apologize to anyone for whom they are familiar, but their message is timeless:” War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself,”
February 28, 2013 at 10:44 am
Forest Queen
That which makes us healthier, makes us more sane. And vice versa. The healthy characteristic of sanity is represented by the soundness of an individual’s judgment of reasoning – a soundness of mind. Individuals who continuously employ impaired judgment and reasoning would be operationally defined as being insane. In a collective culture, judgments and reasoning are predicated on the perceived truths of the basal paradigm. Consequently if the paradigmatic beliefs of a culture were untrue or flawed, then the population that knowingly operated under those faulty beliefs would collectively express unsound judgments and reasoning. In such a case, an entire population can be technically judged to be insane.
February 28, 2013 at 10:57 am
Forest Queen
Dial-up, can’t post as one.) Let’s say you hold an old belief that you are genetically destined to contract breast or prostrate cancer. In light of today’s new knowledge of epigenetics, the reasoning you used to reach that conclusion would be deemed unsound – or totally insane. Fortunately, your condition would only be a temporary insanity because, with awareness of how environment, personal perceptions, and lifestyle influence genetic activity and the immune system, you would be afforded the opportunity to actively influence and manage your health.
February 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Mitch
Erasmus quotes JS Mill: The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself
Gandhi was plenty willing to fight, and accomplished miracles. He was also non-violent. The United States wanted to be the world’s cop, and was willing to drop napalm and Agent Orange to protect whatever it was the cop was in SE Asia to protect. It sure as hell wasn’t freedom for everyone. Not if Phan Thi Kim Phuc counts.
February 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm
suzy blah blah
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself
- this is bombastic propaganda. War isn’t some kinda noble pursuit where everybody studies deeply in philosophy and ethics before they suit up with the armor of “truth”. War is a bunch of puppets guided by the strings of propaganda to a violent and pointless death.
February 28, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Erasmus
Mill was speaking of war as an ultimate defense of one’s values, and I hope that all of us would be willing to sacrifice our lives for something or someone. England under the Nazi blitzkrieg would have fared poorly if Gandhi had been heeded, and the Mahatma’s advice to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto has been properly labeled “obscene” by a writer I recently read. (He recommended mass suicide — in order to send a spiritual message to the world.) ———————————–I have an FBI file (23 pages) on my antiwar activities when Vietnam was aflame and I’ve never experienced war-envy. Do I think all soldiers are puppets? Of course not —- even Noam Chomsky approves of the Allied offensive against the Nazis.
February 28, 2013 at 5:54 pm
suzy blah blah
Mill was speaking of war as an ultimate defense of one’s values
-at what point is the propagandized person no longer a moral agent?
February 28, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Mitch
England under the Nazi blitzkrieg would have fared poorly if Gandhi had been heeded, and the Mahatma’s advice to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto has been properly labeled “obscene” by a writer I recently read.
True and true, Erasmus.
Can you find the difference between Great Britain being buzz-bombed by the Nazis and the US role in Vietnam? Can you find the difference between the situation of Jews being slaughtered by Nazis and the US role in Vietnam?
I can give you hints if that would help.
February 28, 2013 at 11:08 pm
Unk John
Suzy’s said, “War is a bunch of puppets guided by the strings of propaganda to a violent and pointless death.” She hit the target perfectly.
Forest Queen’s said, ” It’s just business as usual for the banksters.” This says essentially the same thing, and it points the finger in the direction of the string pullers.
They both point toward one of the precepts of Karl Marx with which I am in total agreement. He said that all wars are economic. Someone’s making money or gaining power which eventually becomes money.
February 28, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Unk John
Please forgive my typos (Suzy’s and Queen’s).
March 1, 2013 at 7:08 am
Mitch
Eric,
If only families like yours had 10 kids per couple, and the conservative religions considered having children a sin.
March 1, 2013 at 7:44 am
Erasmus
Suzi —- I would have to have a deeper knowledge of a soldier’s soul to be able to answer that question. No doubt there are far too many cases of human cannon-fodder, and moral agency certainly does not apply to them. Your point therefore I accept, but not for every case — in WWI, for instance, all too many soldiers were like Rupert Brooke, gleefully and gladly hurtling toward death.
Mitch —– Of course I see the difference between Vietnam and the Nazi onslaught against the Jews. That’s why I (perhaps selfishly, perhaps out of cowardice) chose to fight my draft board and protest the war. In hindsight, I understand better than I did back then what the geopolitical justification of the war meant. (Though it’s still flawed.)
Unk John —– Marx was too reductionist in his thinking: the lowest common denominator is a necessary but partial explanation. “Marriage is all about sex” would be another example of a statement difficult to disprove but intuitively inadequate to account for all it attempts to explain. Bertrand Russell had a deeper knowledge of human nature than Marx did — he lived through the Great War. “I had supposed until that time that it was quite common for parents to love their children, but the war persuaded me that it is a rare exception. I had supposed that most people liked money better than almost anything else, but I discovered that they liked destruction even better. I had supposed that intellectuals frequently loved truth, but I found here again that not ten per cent of them prefer truth to popularity” (from vol. 2 of his autobiography). And Oscar Wilde was on the mark when he wrote:”As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular”(in ‘The Critic as Artist’).
March 1, 2013 at 8:22 am
Forest Queen
Unk John & suzy,
Yep, some send our children off to the ‘infant’ry to be cannon fodder. Some return labeled as ‘damaged collateral.’ We are not of the ‘preferred stock’ but rather ‘common stock.’
March 1, 2013 at 11:02 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
There is much about your posts that I respect. But, mankind’s love of destructiveness aside, I’d have to agree with Unk John (and Marx) that war is 99% about power and money. You were far wiser when you challenged your draft board than once you learned about geopolitical justifications. Having one’s ass on the line helps clarify one’s thoughts.
The totalitarian monstrosity we said — and maybe believed — we were there to fight off has many forms.
Our 20th century ability to give ourselves each the energy equivalent of hundreds of slaves has allowed our own situation to remain somewhat less obvious than the situation confronted by those in the gulag. We live in a gilded, if corroding, cage in which there is tons of room left for personal choices in personal spheres, in which we may each have our favorite fashions, celebrities, and cereals, and in which we are each entitled to post on blogs and run whatever political advertising we can afford. None of us have to carry a little red book around. We can choose to pay attention to Fox or MSNBC, or even listen to Democracy Now, and we are free to choose to worship whichever mythology we wish. The hierarchies in charge of the mythologies are all so well-protected they’ve been able to abuse children for generations without being prosecuted.
Too bad about our inability to control the banks, our inability to shave back the military-industrial complex, the capture of our society’s wealth by the top 0.01%, and their export, still in progress, of everyone’s jobs and the community on which they are dependent. Too bad about what we continue to do to the prospects for our children and grandchildren.
Thank heavens we haven’t have to go through what Cambodia or China did, but we’re all headed to the same place, and it’s hell on earth.
March 1, 2013 at 11:22 am
Erasmus
I wonder whether the “war is 99% about power and money” applies to the N. Vietnamese soldiers. Were bankers funding them? Do concepts such as honor and patriotism play no role? Was William James wrong in his “Remarks at the Peace Banquet”? (“The plain truth is that people want war. They want it anyhow: for itself, and apart from each and every possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s fireworks. The born soldier wants it hot and actual. The non-combatant wants it in the background and always as an open possibility….”) It is more comforting, of course, to adopt the Marxist line on this question — just rid the world of capitalists and their running dogs and all will be well! Turn the world into an egalitarian paradise and the thirst for blood will vanish. —– I side with Russell and James, though —- power and money don’t suffice to account for the glory attached to self-sacrifice in war, the Wagnerian , apocalyptic love-death, the melting of the individual into a larger cause. “Inability to control the banks” is a problem of political engineering; the roots of war lie deep in the human heart.
March 1, 2013 at 11:31 am
Mitch
Honor and patriotism, Erasmus, are the tricks the wealthy and/or powerful play on young people to get them to turn themselves voluntarily into cannon fodder.
The young people dying in war may do it out of honor and patriotism. The people who MAKE war by invading places they don’t already live? Money and power.
March 1, 2013 at 11:36 am
Mitch
“the melting of the individual into a larger cause”
What you describe is based on love. The honorable emotion is hijacked by wealth and power to serve their purposes. The military is lionized, statues are erected, a few of the unkilled are invited into the circles of power.
To see the truth of what money and power think of those who melt into the larger cause of war, just visit a VA hospital that hasn’t been prepped for a press visit, at a time when a new war is under final preparation.
Jimmy Carter tried to sell the future of the planet as a larger cause into which we could melt. He was widely ridiculed for speaking the truth, behavior that never appeals to money and power.
March 1, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Mitch
“It is more comforting, of course, to adopt the Marxist line on this question — just rid the world of capitalists and their running dogs and all will be well!”
To clarify, Erasmus, I hardly think capitalist and their running dogs are the only example of money and power at work in the world. The USSR, Vatican, and People’s Republics have all demonstrated to anyone who cares to pay attention that money and power can co-exist with any ideological system.
I know you think, or at least assert, that there’s nothing particularly special about the particular “crying wolf” around the environment due to the revolutionary ability to extract fossil fuels and then use the entombed energy. I disagree, and I think we as a species will either figure out how to keep our instincts for money and power under control, or we will destroy ourselves. I expect the latter.
March 1, 2013 at 5:51 pm
suzy blah blah
the melting of the individual into a larger cause
-an accurate description of how propaganda is used in the service of mind control, where the “melting of individuality” is employed so that brainwashing can occur. Witness army boot-camp.
“The plain truth is that people want war.”
-i can’t argue with that although i would add that i see the desire as being largely unconscious.
… the roots of war lie deep in the human heart
-agree.
March 1, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Unk John
“The plain truth is that people want war. They want it anyhow: for itself, and apart from each and every possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s fireworks. The born soldier wants it hot and actual. The non-combatant wants it in the background and always as an open possibility….”)
I have to say, Erasmus, that I do not give that statement high marks for validity. I understand the appeal, but I strongly disagree with James. This reductionist concept of “thirst for blood” is perhaps rooted in an even more basic program that we refer to as self preservation. That is a button to be pushed.
Further, this thing about money and power not being sufficient has nothing to do with “wars are economic.” The “glory attached to self sacrifice” has to do with the participants in the war. I don’t think that Marx was talking about them. It is the money and the power that affords the people in control the opportunity to convince the general population that the self sacrifice of the lower classes is necessary.
You are absolutely correct when you assert that the inability to control the banks is the result of political engineering. But, you see, I firmly believe that that inability IS where the roots of war lie.
March 2, 2013 at 12:59 am
suzy blah blah
11:11 pm — please forgive my typos (Suzy’s and Queen’s).
-Unk, i think a neo Freudian would call them archetypos . . . and in that parlance they beg the question, ‘Suzy’s what, Queenie’s what?’
It’s an issue of possession. If the boundaries of the individual dissolve naturally, then the individual does NOT merely melt into a larger cause, or larger possessiveness, or group narcissism . . . or into oneness with the army squadron, or the local gang, or soccer team, or one’s lover. If the experience is whole, then individual realizes a oneness with everything –including your so called enemy.
March 2, 2013 at 7:39 am
Erasmus
How “inability to control the banks” can explain the murderous folly of WW! or WWII or N. Vietnam invading the South or Castro overthrowing Batista or ….. is frankly beyond my understanding. I don’t deny the (fairly obvious) thinking of Marx, but surely a bit of Freud (or even Jung) in the mix would add some plausibility to the analysis.
March 2, 2013 at 10:34 am
Mitch
To be fair, Erasmus, I’ll quote my full statement before responding to yours:
So, no, “inability to control the banks” may not have been the complete answer to WWI, or WWII or Vietnam or Cuba.
But, at least as I understand it, a great deal of US freedom-fighting has miraculously coincided with the economic interests of large US-based companies, from United Fruit to Standard Oil to who knows what. The entire fight against communism was sold as a fight for freedom, but was visibly a fight for profits.
Sure, we wanted to prevent the Commies from winning a pawn. And we were perfectly willing to destroy the people “whose freedom we were fighting for,” as long as it kept the Commies from taking a step forward in their interference with the profits of the large US-based companies.
And if soldiers were not willing to fight for the profits of Standard Oil, it was necessary to convince people of the romance of fighting the communist terror.
Smedley Butler summed it up: “Why don’t those damned oil companies fly their own flags on their personal property- maybe a flag with a gas pump on it.”
March 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Erasmus
I’m sure that your cynicism (not entirely without justification) plays well in certain circles, but it’s actually naive in its own way. If you think that communism was a danger only to oil companies and their lackeys — you are naive. (Was Pope John Paul a pawn of capiltalism?) If you think that Smedley Butler, with all his medals, is a font of historical wisdom, an authoritative analyst of U.S. history whose word is unassailable, you are naive. If you have swallowed the line that our policy in Vietnam bore any resemblance to “genocide” (as your line about our being willing to “destroy the people” for whose freedom we were ostensibly fighting implies), you are misinformed: in Guenter Lewy’s ‘America in Vietnam’ we read that “According to figures compiled by the UN, the populations of N and S. Vietnam increased steadily during and despite the war, at annual rates of change roughly double that of the US. This fact makes the charge of genocide a bit grotesque”(pp. 300-301).———All I ask from anyone debating issues of war and peace is that simplistic answers be avoided. In Steven Le Blanc’s book ‘Constant Battles: the myth of the peaceful, noble savage’ we learn that egalitarian, foraging societies were, on the whole, far more violent than ours. There were no banks or Standard Oil companies back then. I give more credence to philosophers like William James than to conspiracy theorists who can always find a banker or oil company that profits from war. Pogo was closer to the truth than they are.
March 2, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Mitch
Erasmus,
I’m sure I’m plenty naive, but I do think Smedley Butler was a font of historical decency.
Communism, as played out in the USSR, China, god-help-us Cambodia, was a disaster. I don’t think we’ll ever know how much of that was due to the opposition of the capitalist states. I’m not making any case that Communism-as-it-existed was not a danger to people.
I don’t think, though, that the US fought communism in all its guises. It just fought communism when US interests (meaning the interests of large US-based companies) were at stake.
Here’s a 1991 Times clip referring to our $1.4 billion trade deficit with Communist China: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/08/business/us-communist-trade.html
Here’s a Heritage paper from the 70s: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1979/05/most-favored-nation-status-trade-with-communist-nations
I do not believe the United States conducted genocide in Southeast Asia, and I made no such claim. I do believe we thought Vietnamese lives were pretty cheap. I don’t believe our primary purpose was saving VIetnamese lives, or enabling the Vietnamese to make a democratic choice about their economic system.
I don’t believe the myth of the noble savage. I’ve read Pinker’s book on the decline of violence, and he makes good arguments — I’m still trying to process them, but haven’t quite managed.
Simplistic arguments exist on all sides. *Of course* humans are violent creatures. Governments and institutions are constantly telling us when it is heroic to express our violence, and when we must suppress it or go to jail.
Our government is not that different from others; it has done a competent job of convincing people that it is heroic to invade other countries, while shoving the economic interests behind the curtain under the carpet. (Oooh, I like that…)
March 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm
suzy blah blah
surely a bit of Freud (or even Jung) in the mix would add some plausibility to the analysis
-Erasmus, In The Red Book Jung clearly states that he believes that the rigid inflexibility of the ego points to the source of war. And he further explains how arousing the archetype of stopping the world was a necessary prerequisite in initiatory Diogenesian orgies which were used for breaking down ego boundaries in ancient Greece.
March 2, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Erasmus
I’ll try to get ahold of that book and investigate the matter. But Euripides’ “The Bacchae” points to the danger lurking in Dionysian rites. (And our Altamont and Manson murders should have disabused us of the conceit that the counterculture was all love and peace.) ——————————–H.L. Mencken thought that war would end only when human beings were created with larger cerebrums and smaller adrenal glands.
March 2, 2013 at 6:25 pm
suzy blah blah
-Dionysus’ dismemberment is about sacrificing the ego to engage the dark unconscious forces within us. According to Jung, when we fail to do this the evil appears outside of us where we are forced to engage it as violence, war etc. Witness Manson’s victims. He says that –The truth which we won’t admit to ourselves is, that we, the human race, are thirsty for blood –all of us.
March 3, 2013 at 7:36 am
Forest Queen
Truth is an opinion.
“All of us are thirsty for blood” . . .Such horse dooder!!!
I can’t control myself, I’m too fat, I’m too short, I’m not smart enough, I’m not good enough, what will people think of me? Jeeze Louise – let’s just hold hands and jump off into the abyss.
Fight or quit.
March 3, 2013 at 12:41 pm
suzy blah blah
-you won’t find peace in denial Queenie.
March 3, 2013 at 6:08 pm
Eric Kirk
Erasmus – the manson murders is a good illustration of your point, but Altamont was the work of a bike gang stupidly hired for security. Hardly counter culture.
March 3, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Forest Queen
And neither will you Suzie.
March 3, 2013 at 8:37 pm
suzy blah blah
-Eric, Manson’s cult wasn’t counterculture either. It was more like a microcosm, in drag, of what was being done large scale by the US government at the time. JUst as Nixon sent young kids to be killed in viet nam, Manson likewise delegated the duty of his planned murders to his followers, sacrificing them for the cause.
It had nothing to do with Dionysian rites, except perhaps in the press’s sensationalizing, scapegoating, and fear-mongering. The real experience of the dissolution of the ego’s boundaries, and the realization that your enemy is yourself, is what the mainstream culture was afraid might be happening in the counterculture’s movement. If their game is to work they need to maintain the semblance of us and them. Hence the exaggerated demonization of Manson, and the equating of him with the counterculture’s values. Consequently, he’s become almost as big an evil as Hitler is in the eyes of the brainwashed masses. And almost as much a caricature of evil as the man in red pajamas with the pointed tail and horns. But the truth is, he was just a small time thug who’s gang killed a few folks. Big deal. The only reason he is remembered is that he was used as propaganda to illustrate the “evils” of the countercultural values. Murders between rival factions in LA happen all the time and they barely make the news. The guy at Sandy Hook slaughtered three times as many, children yet, and most of us have already forgotten his name.
March 4, 2013 at 5:18 am
Erasmus
Valid points. In the general public’s perception, though, the counterculture showed itself unable to police itself, and the appearance of someone like Manson immediately branded him as a kind of hippie. A reading of “The Bacchae” is still a salutary warning of the dangers of ego-dissolution — and Jung is right to decry a too-rigid ego. It’s always the golden mean that eludes us.
March 4, 2013 at 2:21 pm
suzy blah blah
-thanks for pointing towards The Bacchea. I will give it a read later this week when i have time … i’m totally looking forward to it.
March 4, 2013 at 9:52 pm
suzy blah blah
-absolutely great play , i loved it. My favorite line: ” He who talks wisdom to an ignorant man will seem out of his senses”. Plan to read Ion next.
March 5, 2013 at 10:17 am
Forest Queen
From the movie “Peaceful Warrior” – It’s taken a lifetime of being out of my mind to come to my senses.
The harmful and expensive military machine in the history of humanity empowered a sinister force – the lowest common denominator.
“Thou shalt not kill” was modified to “thou shalt not kill unless done in extremely large groups.” Consequently, during the course of the 20th century, some 260 million human beings died as a result of warfare. That doesn’t include the suffering of those who didn’t die but were maimed, left homeless, or otherwise traumatized. Consider, too, the fears and traumas associated with these conflicts, both conscious and unconscious, which have been passed onto those alive on the planet now.
The power of force has been in force so long that we assume it is natural.
Lo9king at the whole of Western history, with a few exceptions, we see that violence and domination have been internalized, externalized, and eternalized; violence has been declared a character of human nature for now and forever.
March 5, 2013 at 1:25 pm
suzy blah blah
violence has been declared a character of human nature
-yes, of course. If a person can’t even see that violence is a character of human nature they are totally ignorant, in complete denial, or both.
March 5, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Forest Queen
suzy,
Jung’s exact quote was; “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life, and you will call it fate.”
You can take a lighted candle into a dark room and bring light. The opposite is impossible.
War, my dear friend, is in-human.
March 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm
suzy blah blah
-if you light a candle in a dark room you may be very surprised at what you find. Jung says if you would be able to light up your darkness, ie bring the unconscious repressed side into consciousness, you would be able to see the violence residing there. But Queenie, why would suzy even want to discuss Jung with you when you call what he said, “horse dooder”.
March 5, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Forest Queen
Perhaps because you mis-quoted Jung.
We all know that by creating denigrating images, which can be delivered in subtle ways{i.e. Queenie}, eventually leads to violent social divisions The beauty of a concept of a culture of peace is that it is understood that we have to re-create community based on human worth and needs, rather than on the consumption of stuff, or the competition for dominance.
You are not my enemy. You are my sister seeking the truth, that I am also searching for. We move in darkness to be who we think we are. Wake up until a single voice we say “Enough!”
March 6, 2013 at 2:47 am
suzy blah blah
-it was a paraphrase. Here’s the whole thing:
“We are also capable of wanting it only we don’t know it. That we could wish for a war is a terrible thought, but let us assume there are too many people in the world too great an increase in the population, so that we are too close to one another, too crowded upon each other, and finally we hate each other. Then the thoughts begin to develop: What can we do about it? Could we not cause a conflagration? Could we not kill that whole crowd in order to get a little space? Or suppose that life is too hard, that you don’t get a job, or the job doesn’t pay, or other people take it away from you. If there were fewer people life would be much easier to live that it is now. Don’t you think that slowly the idea would dawn upon you that you want to kill that other fellow? Now we must admit that in no other time have there been so many people crowded together . It is a brand new experience. Not only are we crowded in our cities, we are crowded in other ways; we know practically everything that happens in the world, it is shouted on the radio, we get it in the newspapers. If someone falls off his bicycle in Siam we get it in the post next day; we are impressed with an unheard misery when we hear of so many people having been drowned in China, so many starved in Siberia, so many killed in Spain, and perhaps a railway accident in Norway, and always a revolution in South America. You see we are impressed with all the misery of the world, because the whole world is now shouting in our ears every day. We enjoy it and we don’t know what it is doing to us until finally we get the feeling that it is too much. How can one stop it? We must kill them all…..
So we should say – and I would like to say – that there is a terrible demon in man that blindfolds him that prepares awful destruction, and it would be much better if we had a temple for the god of war, where now, for instance with all this trouble in Europe, we could say: the god of war is restless, we must propitiate him, let us sacrifice to the god of war. And then every country would be going to the temples of the war god to sacrifice, perhaps it would be a human sacrifice, I don’t know, something precious, they might burn up a lot of ammunition or destroy cannons for the god of war. That would help. To say that it is not we who want it would help because man could then believe in his goodness. For if you have to admit that you are doing just what you say you are not doing, you are not only a liar, you are a devil, and then where is the self esteem of man?
How can he hope for a better future? We can never become anything else because we are caught in that contradiction, on the one side we want to do good and on the other we are doing the worst. How can man develop? He is forever caught in that dilemma. So you had better acknowledge the evil, what you call it doesn’t matter. If there were priests who said that the god of war must be propitiated that would be a way of protecting yourself. But of course there are no such things, so we must admit that we prepare the war, that we are just thirsty for blood everybody.”
Carl Jung
March 6, 2013 at 7:26 am
Mitch
Thank you, sbb and fq, for engaging in this interesting discussion. (I find it hard to believe it’s the same people at these pseudonyms as before, but anything is possible.)
Jung said: “[Humanity] is forever caught in that dilemma. So you had better acknowledge the evil, what you call it doesn’t matter.”
IMO, science offers the main potential path out of the dilemma. As long as people proudly declare that their own subjective view is god’s view, what Jung referred to as “evil,” can flourish. We all have our own history of experiences that lead us to our own subjective views, and our own subjective views can contribute to a diversity of responses to problems, but we are fools if we think we can avoid objective reality.
IMO, science leads to a clear-sighted view of human nature and what we call good and evil. We are evolved creatures with selfishness baked into the process which led to us. At the same time, we’ve somehow evolved consciousness and incredibly complex social behavior, which makes us something more than just selfish.
We don’t need to acknowledge evil; when we do we tend to project it onto the other. That’s why propitiating a human-created image of God is doomed to failure. We DO need to acknowledge our evolutionary heritage of selfishness, and the fact that our heritage applies to us all. Then we would have a chance, given that we’ve evolved consciousness.
March 6, 2013 at 7:45 am
fool on the hill
but we are fools if we think we can avoid objective reality.
all you have done is substituted a human created image of objective reality for the human created image of God.
physics doesn’t even support your belief in Big Science….
March 6, 2013 at 8:21 am
Mitch
fool,
Big Science is not science. Science is extremely simple. If you can tell others something you’ve observed, and also provide them with the materials and techniques that will allow them to duplicate your observation, you’re doing science.
Some people, even some scientists, think science rules things out. It doesn’t. If there’s no way to reproduce an observation, that doesn’t mean the observation isn’t real. It just means it isn’t science.
Physics is science. I’m not clear on how physics doesn’t support science. Too many people think they know something about quantum mechanics because they heard a teacher talk about the uncertainty principle. If you think it rules science out, you don’t know enough about quantum mechanics OR the rest of science.
March 6, 2013 at 8:25 am
Mitch
And objective reality is easily defined. It’s what science reveals. See how neatly they fit together? If others can duplicate your observation, you can agree that the observation is objective. If others cannot duplicate your observation, your observation is subjective. Maybe it’s real, maybe it’s not, but you have no way to convince others that your observation is real.
Science is basically democracy in reaching conclusions about the nature of the world. If you see a little pink polka-dotted rabbit on the table, but no one else does, it’s not objectively there. If everyone in the room EXCEPT you sees a little pink polka-dotted rabbit on the table, you should get your eyesight checked.
March 6, 2013 at 9:02 am
Erasmus
I agree with Noam Chomsky — and not with Mitch — on the question of how to arrive at the most complete understanding of human nature. The MIT celebrity has stated that it is possible — or more likely highly probable — that understanding the human mind is better achieved by reading novels than by studying scientific psychology. It’s been a pipe dream for centuries that science will provide the answers we need to solve matters of war and peace.
And trusting that science will elucidate good and evil? Four centuries ago Pascal understood the difference between reasons of the heart and reasons of the mind —– have we regressed to the point where the distinction is lost on us?
March 6, 2013 at 9:24 am
Forest Queen
And, thank you for your well-said above posts – I, too, ‘see’ a different Mitch.
If victims fail to release their sense of victimization, they end up re-enacting their wound or projecting it onto others. Peace has the capacity to frame a worldview that supports healing the wounds incurred in our evolutionary story. Embedded in this vision is the notion that we are more than a collection of individuals forced to compete with one another for limited resources. “The survival of the fittest” can be true ONLY if ‘fitness’ is redefined to mean the most loving, caring, and compassionate. Since science has begun to affirm that these qualities are indeed the ones that match up with wellness and longevity, we can get beyond the charge that those who think this way are crackpot idealists. Philosophical abstractions about peace will no longer serve.
We have evolved to a place where a political form of dictatorship is no longer acceptable to most people because their consciousness has evolved beyond it. We know collectively that the only political forms that will thrive are authentic reflections of the will of the people.
March 6, 2013 at 10:07 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
You are welcome to Noam Chomsky. There’s a joke somewhere about Nixon, Clinton, and hell; you’ll get the reference if you’ve heard the joke.
Science has already provided the answers we need, even in these early days of true neuroscience. They complement the answers of novelists, and provide good reasons, understandable by all, that human-created Gods are dangerous.
March 6, 2013 at 2:13 pm
suzy blah blah
-Queenie, I think you should give credit to James O’Dea, the true author of the quote you plagiarized at 9:24 am:
March 6, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Forest Queen
Suzie, Seemed fitting. Credit to James O’Day. I have portions of scripts that have been emailed to me, written in letters to me, or that I’ve read and noted, printed and mixed,- and don’t know from wenst it came, or when and should have so noted.
March 8, 2013 at 4:03 pm
suzy blah blah
We don’t need to acknowledge evil; when we do we tend to project it onto the other.
-when Jung says we need to acknowledge evil he means withdrawing the projection of evil and by that means acknowledging it in oneself. To refuse to acknowledge it within oneself is denial –which leads to projection which leads to war.
“there is a terrible demon in man that blindfolds him that prepares awful
destruction”
CJ