We are ALL at liberty to NOT challenge the prevailing paradigm.

I just wanted to repeat that.

One More [Conspiracy Theory] for the Road

Having recently viewed the film "The U.S. vs. John Lennon," I am intrigued by the persistence of the social (and political) role of the "lone wacko" gunman figure in American history. I am not persuaded that Mark David Chapman was put up to the murder of Lennon by the Federal Government, but I have to wonder why people whom the F.B.I. has considered "individuals of interest" (and John Lennon became one of these when he started cashing in his celebrity chips in an effort to mainstream political dissidents in the United States--perhaps the ONLY thing that could redeem our cults of celebrity) also attract these figures. Manchurian candidate, you ask? I think it is a question worth asking aloud, not that I expect to receive any kind of a convincing answer...Besides, I couldn't resist posting this great pic of John...

The important lesson to draw from the Lennon case, the FBI's surveillance of members of the anti-war movement, MLK, Malcolm X, members of the Black Panther Party, and the infamous COINTEL program, is that the U. S. Justice Department has consistently interpreted its mission in ways that are contrary to the express language of the Bill of Rights. What I want to know is: When will we stop placing the fox in charge of the chicken coop?

Speaking of Paranoia

It is a shame that Oliver Stone neglected to include John F. Kennedy's commencement address at American University, delivered June 10, 1963 (five months before his murder in Dallas) in the film JFK. Had he included this speech, Stone would have bolstered his theory that President Kennedy was assassinated due to a planned policy shift which would seriously undermine the role of the military in the government of the United States. In the event, Stone also missed an opportunity to use the power of Hollywood to acquaint a large (indeed, international) audience with this speech, which one cannot read or listen to today without being stunned by the oceanic difference between Kennedy's emerging vision of America's potential role in the world and the Neo-Con Manichaean paranoia that currently holds this country in its grip. I'm sorry, how was that again? Who's paranoid?

Just Because I'm Paranoid, Doesn't Mean They're Not Out to Get Me

Friends of mine have occasionally observed what they consider to be a conspiratorial flavor to some of my opinions. To my mind, I am as much (or as little) of a conspiracy-theorist as was Ralph Waldo Emerson. Recall that it was Emerson who remarked (in "Self-Reliance," I believe), that "society everywhere is a conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members." It is very difficult to see through the flotsam and jetsam of everyday life to the scaffolding which causes things to hang together in precisely the way in which they do. Many people who attempt to do so fail to keep in mind the complexity of the issues involved and the sheer randomness and therefore unaccountability of much that takes place in the world. It was upon this very basis that I originally rejected Noam Chomsky's notion of the "manufacture of consent." I came away from my first viewing of that film thinking that the great linguist had finally gone 'round the bend. On further reflection, however, I began to recognize that there is a world of difference (and nuance) between Chomsky's analysis of what finds its way into the dominant narrative (what we often call "common knowledge") about such things as the Iraq War or the conflict over the Occupied Territories and, say, the Arab Street's paranoia about the hidden hand of the Israeli government behind everything that goes wrong in this world.

It is significant, in fact, that Chomsky is a linguist; for, as a linguist, Chomsky understands the socially constructed nature of human communication and the constraints which discursive patterns place upon one's conceptual field. Indeed, we all operate within a nexus of constraints: sticks and carrots, paths of greater and lesser resistance, rules, laws, habits, customs, mores--one's personal freedom is at all times and everywhere circumscribed. Depending upon what one wants to do, the noose of circumscription is either loosened or tightened by anyone willing to take the initiative to do so.

What'll it be? Coke or Pepsi?

"Sprite."

Ha ha. Very clever. Guess what? It's a Coca-Cola product.

"Alright, then, smart guy: Mountain Dew."

Sorry. PepsiCo.

"Dr. Pepper then."

Depends upon where you're going to drink it. Coca-Cola holds most non-U.S. rights to the good doctor.

"Seven Up?"

Actually merged with Dr. Pepper. But again, it depends upon where you plan to drink it. PepsiCo holds most non-U.S. rights to the Uncola.

But this isn't about soft drinks anyway. It's about one's willingness to challenge the prevailing paradigm regarding war and peace.

And one thing is certain: We are ALL at liberty to NOT challenge the prevailing paradigm.

In the Interests of Full Disclosure

I suppose that one reason it took me so many years to consistently embrace pacifism was the fact that I had, growing up, a vested interest in the Military-Industrial-Complex: my father was a physical chemist who was employed for many years by Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory. So it always seemed somewhat hypocritical to me to take a hard-line anti-military stance when it was the MIC that had put food on my table and a roof over my head, the clothes on my back, the braces on my teeth, provided the health insurance policy that paid for medical care, the income that allowed me to live in a leafy suburb with an excellent school system, paid my college tuition, etc., etc. It was never my desire to be ungrateful. Nor did I wish to dishonor my own father's service to this country through his employment. I therefore understood and continue to understand fully the plight of others who, likewise, have vested interests in the current system in one way or another. And I do not doubt that I continue to have vested interests in the system in many ways of which I am not specifically aware. And yet...

And yet, this is the way that they buy your silence.

Qur'an 25: 63

Ten years ago, in the first days of the month of Ramadan, I picked up a copy of the Qur'an and, on a whim, closed my eyes, opened the book, and randomly placed my finger upon a page. I then opened my eyes and read the following line where my finger had pointed: "Those who have placed themselves at the beck and call of the Merciful One tread this earth in gentleness, and when the foolish accost them, they respond: 'Peace!'" [my rendering from the arabic].

I was standing at the moment that I read these words, but found I had to sit down.

O God, make my heart an amulet, and inscribe these words within.

It is no wonder that the Federal Government's thugs choose to desecrate this book at Gitmo.

A Brief Q & A

Q: You appear to be vehemently anti-military; does that make you anti-troops?

A: I am vehemently anti-military, but I subscribe to the notion that there are no lost causes--there is hope for all of us (even someone like, say, Donald Rumsfeld)--
because I reject the doctrine of "Original Sin." There are no inherently bad people, only inherently bad choices. The choice to engage in murder under color of law is, in my view, an inherently poor choice.

The rhetoric today that to oppose the war in Iraq or to oppose the Military-Industrial- Complex's stranglehold upon our democracy is to oppose the soldiers in the field is dishonest at best. If someone you love has made a poor choice and is engaged in following through with the consequences of that choice (e.g., drug abuse, theft, vandalism, murder), the appropriate response to that person is not to pin ribbons on his or her chest, but to engage in some form of intervention. Indeed, it is LOVE for that person that dictates one's opposition to his or her harmful actions. If you affirm someone's poor choices, you must not care about that person's welfare.

The Challenge We Face, Individually and Collectively as a Species

The challenge we face is to finally allow ourselves to be scandalized by the present state of things; and to have the courage to say, "Enough is enough," and to be willing to do something about it.

It is to want to deliver to our children a world constructed from our best hopes, not our worst fears.

It is to declare that war is simply unacceptable, that the Military-Industrial-Complex is institutionalized evil, that the desire to control others beyond oneself is pathological.

It is to recognize that our religious and educational institutions, despite all protests to the contrary, have capitulated to the violent status quo, failing us, failing themselves, failing God.

It is to refuse to allow our consciences to be co-opted by any doctrine, law, or constitution, i.e., to reserve to ourselves the right vouchsafed us in the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The "mystery" rights; let them be mysterious no more.

It is to look ourselves in the mirror and ask how in God's name we ever allowed ourselves to accept murder, theft, torture, and mayhem to be carried out in our names and under the colors of our flag.

It is to believe in resurrection and, so, to RISE UP!

Encourage one another with the truth; encourage one another to persist (Q. 103:4).

Who Says Militant Pacifism Isn't Stylish?

Those interested in obtaining this handsome (1") button, suitable for all occasions, great as gifts and party favors and indicative of one's desire to engage in militant pacifism, are encouraged to order a supply from donnelly/colt.com.

Signs of a Healthy Culture

In a healthy culture, when an individual announced his or her decision to enlist in the military, the immediate response of the recipients of this news would be to look at their shoes in embarrassed silence. Then, after a few moments, the intensive questioning would begin. "What do you mean? What has happened to convince you that violence is an appropriate response to conflict?" And so it would go until the young recruit would recognize that he or she had marked him or herself as someone who was in danger of committing a serious mistake, one that, if persisted in long enough, would risk communal ostracism.

I am not joking. The military option is no option at all.

When the invasion of Iraq was imminent, I recall having conversations with well-meaning people who would say things like, "Well, you know, I'm generally opposed to war, but they have a lot of problems over there and once the fighting is over, we'll have people on the ground able to help out." And I wondered, "What are these people smoking?" But I would invariably respond to such sentiments by saying: "It is true that Iraq has problems. But we are sending soldiers there, not social workers. Soldiers are people whose primary training is to kill other people. If you wish to put out a fire, don't throw gasoline on it."

The myriad ways in which we manage to rationalize violence are truly astounding.

Waging Peace

"I would no more teach children military training than teach them arson, robbery, or assassination."--Eugene V. Debs


On Tuesday, March 20, 2007, "hundreds of protesters" walked out of class and marched through the campus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to protest the war in Iraq (according to the student newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel). I suppose this is a good sign. I only wish these protestors had joined me and the 15 or 20 other protesters who staged a demonstration back in 2003 at the start of the war. By now, the hundreds would be thousands. But we need hundreds of thousands or, better, a "Millions of Men, Women, and Children March" on the Capitol to shut it down until our demands are met.

I'm not holding my breath, however.

Indeed, I don't put a whole lot of stock in such actions, heart-warming as they may be--and I am sincere in my appreciation for them. Because even if we could bring an end to the Iraq war (or rather the American involvement in the Civil War that the Anglo-American invasion of 2003 precipitated), the enemies of democracy and international security in the White House, Congress, Pentagon, and K Street, would simply go back to the drawing board--as they did after Viet Nam--and go to work on the marketing plan for the next war.

We need to find ways to re-orient our population's attitudes towards violence. Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes for this task. As I have said before, this task is generational in scope; one that must proceed conscience by conscience.

One obvious starting place for the gradual moral revolution that is the prerequisite to any meaningful political and cultural change in the United States is with the institutions which are supposed to speak to people's consciences: houses of worship and schools. We truly need to consider whether and to what extent these institutions are, as a practical matter, recruiting stations for militarism. How can they be converted into recruiting stations for the Unarmed Services? How can they contribute to lowering the average individual's tolerance for violence?

Peacemaking is an activity. It requires, however, a narrative to direct and sustain it. Part of what I am hoping to accomplish over time with this blog is to compose the equivalent of hundreds and then thousands of pages of rumination upon this subject. Rumination that others might find useful and to the point; rumination to engender ideas that can support constructive action. For many years I alternately possessed, on the one hand, the courage to act and, on the other, convictions to support action, but rarely were the two properly aligned. Here I am thinking out loud in the hopes that others might think along with me. We need more than good intentions--though our intentions must always be good. We need more than the time and energy necessary to act--though time and energy are indispensible. We need plans and practical means of implementing them. The hour is getting late...

Contemplating Political Change Versus Moral Revolution

In the United States today, politics is a drug; it is a distraction designed to divert the people's energies into acceptable channels; it is the new opiate of the masses--though, in terms of actual effectiveness, it is but a placebo.

The 2-Party system is wired as tight as the Politburo. Indeed, what we have in practice is a mono-party with "conservative" and "liberal" wings. What is essential to understand is that the outcome of every election to an important post is predetermined by the monoparty establishment. Yeah, sure, like I was told as a child, anybody can run for President in the United States. Yee-haw! But every four years only one of two individuals will be elected President and those two individuals are selected and vetted by the monoparty. Sure, we have freedom of choice in the United States; what'll it be? Coke or Pepsi?

I don't mean to put too fine a point on this, but there is an authentic sense in which every important election in this country is fixed. And that still isn't good enough for some of the monoparty's career criminals--i.e., those who want to mess with the ballot system.

Then there is the Electoral College. The Framers of the Constitution were only too well aware of the wisdom that resides in the American people to trust it. They felt the need to put in place a safety valve--one that would allow for an intervention on the part of the ruling elite should something somehow go terribly wrong with the tightly wired system they had devised for sharing power among themselves. The results of the elections of 2000 and 2004 demonstrate that their fears were groundless. In 2000, the Electoral College dutifully ratified the United States Supreme Court's choice of George W. Bush over the popularly elected Al Gore and in 2004 the College dutifully ratified the people's choice of the same George W. Bush despite a record over the previous four years that demonstrated his utter contempt for the Bill of Rights at home and human rights abroad. Really, the system works like a charm.

Only a non-violent moral revolution will awaken the American people to the predicament of pseudemocracy. The MIC is in the driver's seat. We must remove it and then call for a new constitutional convention that will dismantle the 2-party system in favor of a multi-party parliamentary democracy--or whatever else may appear to be an appropriate choice to the generation that will reap the rewards of the non-violent moral revolution. I don't expect to see such a constitutional convention in my lifetime. I am dedicating my efforts to the moral revolution that is its necessary pre-requisite.

From Velvet Revolution to Velvet Jihad

Others have been thinking along lines similar to the approach of the Ghaffar Khan Society.

Dar al-Harb into Dar as-Salaam

Medieval Muslim Jurists divided the world into two competing spheres: Dar al-Harb (the Abode of War) and Dar as-Salaam (the Abode of Peace). This division reflected prevailing ideologies and their geographical coordinates. The goal of jihad (literally, "struggle") was to extend the borders of Dar as-Salaam until the entire world would become the Abode of Peace. Violent means to this end were both accepted and contemplated--but the term jihad did not then (and does not now) reduce to mere violence. There is, for example, a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad that the jihad most pleasing in the sight of God (afdal jihad) occurs when one person tells the truth to another person who has power over him or her--or, as we would say today, "speaking truth to power." What is more, the Medieval Muslim Jurists worked out a theory of "Just War" based upon the Qur'an and Prophetic sayings. It was never "anything goes" in warfare; the struggle for the Abode of Peace could not be accomplished unjustly. The Jurists well understood the concept of "No justice, no peace."

It is always interesting to me to observe how many Muslims and non-Muslims today embrace a reductive caricature of a complex and nuanced tradition. The time has come--indeed, is long overdue--for non-Muslims to recognize the degree to which the Medieval Muslim Jurists were, by the standards of their time, quite "progressive" in their notions of humaneness in the midst of conflict. The time has also come--indeed, is long overdue--for Muslims to recognize that Muslim jurisprudence is not a completed project because history is not a completed project.

By my calculations, the Medieval world began to evanesce among Europeans sometime around the 16th century CE. Medievalism's evanescence has spread from the European peninsula to all parts of the world ever since. Unfortunately, it was exported by Europeans to Muslim majority populations (what the world historian Marshall Hodgson called "Islamdom") largely through violence. In Juristic terms, the borders of Dar al-Harb were extended deep into territories that had previously been Abodes of Peace (Salaam/Peace/Islam).

We are currently experiencing "blowback" from that exportation of violence--though the blowback has been nowhere near proportionate to the original violence that Europeans visited upon Muslims the first time around nor has it been anywhere near proportionate to the violence that the Anglo-American Crusades begun in 2003 under the American Christian "War President" have visited upon Muslims. The problem that Muslims and Muslim Jurists must take up again is the means by which to begin the slow process of converting Dar al-Harb into Dar-as-Salaam. Will Muslims discover--as many of their Christian and Jewish counterparts clearly have not--that violence only begets violence? Will they think through the problem to the discovery that it is a contradiction in terms to create salaam by violent means? This lesson was learned by the Quakers and the Anabaptists during the formative years of their movements--quite violent years, a fact which seems to have dropped out of the narrative but which is documented in histories of the Protestant Reformation.

The equation that has to be reached is between injustice and violence. Doing violence to another human being is in every case the perpetration of injustice (thulm in Qur'anic terms). Once this equation is reached, it then must become the guiding principle of all resistance to injustice.
Ghaffar Khan did the math; he figured it out; he developed a program for "militant" pacifism. We must study his philosophy and his methods.

Plowshares Into Swords, or, How Ike Poisoned the Well

I have often extolled former President Eisenhower's insightful farewell address wherein he coined the phrase "military-industrial-complex" and warned us of its potential threat to this nation. But my praise for that speech ought never to dim our recognition that what Ike gave with the left hand, he pilfered from us with the right. One could point to several places in the speech to illustrate my argument, but I will highlight one paragraph:

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."

We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Really? Compelled? By whom? With this Cold War canard, old Ike undermined the prophetic force of his warning. It was, in fact, NO WARNING at all, but a capitulation to the very military-industrial-complex that he appeared to stand against. It is no doubt this capitulation that made it possible for Ike to deliver his speech--or to deliver it and walk out of his office alive. Maybe we should view his gesture charitably. The ONLY WAY Ike would be permitted to name the devil in our midst, the MIC, was to do so in this compromised fashion. Still, he named it for us, and naming the devil--recognizing it for what it is--is always the essential first step towards defeating it. So, thank you again, Mr. President. I understand that you acted under duress--and yet still summoned the courage to utter the name of the principalities and powers of this present darkness. You were handing off the baton. Know that it has been received. We will take it from here, Cold War canards to the contrary.

The New Abolitionism

What is needed today is a new abolitionist movement in the United States to end our addiction to, and obscene investment in, the instruments of organized violence.

The Military-Industrial-Complex is a business of dehumanization no less than the "peculiar institution" of African slavery.

Thomas Jefferson compared slavery to "holding a wolf by its ears"--you don't want to be doing it but, once you start, you're scared to death to let go; the U.S. violence industry is the wolf we have foolishly caught hold of. But we must let go. Violence is the worm at the core of the American apple. We are the world's largest manufacturer, consumer, and exporter of violence. The non-violent moral revolution must begin with us.

The Qur'anic Abel: Abrahamic Sacred History's First "Militant" Pacifist

The Qur'an offers an intriguing version of a story that also appears in the book "Genesis," where the two sons of Adam are identified as Cain and Abel. The Qur'an places a remarkable speech on the lips of Abel that is absent from the Biblical version. Interpolating a few details from the Genesis version into the Qur'anic version (to supply details the Qur'an may assume its audience already possesses), Cain threatens to kill Abel after learning that his brother's sacrifice was accepted and his [Cain's] was rejected. Abel, in the Qur'anic narration, replies:

"God accepts [sacrifice] from those who are careful to obey [God]; [therefore] if you raise your hand to strike me dead, I will not raise my hand against you to kill you; for I fear the God of the Worlds" [my translation of Qur'an 5: 27-28].

Obedience to God is here presented as a willingness to submit to oppression--Abel suggests that his submission will have the effect of guaranteeing that Cain will be numbered among the "oppressors" whose fate is hell-fire (5: 29)--even if the price of such submission is one's life.

This speech is quickly followed by an allusion to Rabbinic materials which tends to shift attention away from the remarkable nature of Abel's militantly pacifist stance--a shift in attention that ought not to diminish the impact of the Qur'anic argument that the verbal threat which preceded the "first murder" evoked not violence (pre-emptive or counter) but an assertion that obedience to God in such a situation requires restraint.

The Task for Pacifism Today

I must confess that it has taken me a long time to reach the place where I am willing to identify myself politically, morally, religiously, with Pacifism. The reason for my reluctance is that it always struck me as, well, extremist. I never had any problem objecting to the justness of this or that war and, in the late 1970's/early 1980's, I became involved with the nuclear freeze movement. I also objected to Jimmy Carter's revitalization of Selective Service in furtherance of the so-called "Carter Doctrine" in which Carter--yes, Jimmy Carter, look it up--claimed that the United States had a vital national interest in the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and, therefore, military intervention in that region to secure U.S. interests would be justified. So when I registered for the draft in the second year of its reinstitution, I wrote across my registration card that I was a "conscientious objector to war in any form." Looking back on that statement a few years later, I decided that it was an overstatement--and wrote Selective Service a letter to that effect. What I had objected to was the Carter Doctrine--not really war in any form. I was not willing to argue that war as such is impossible of moral justification. I felt that it was not at all unreasonable to leave open the possibility that, under some circumstances, war is the lesser of two or more evils.

Today, I am willing to go on record with the conviction that under no circumstances is war the lesser of two or more evils. War is the Mother of Many Evils. Furthermore, I believe that war is, in every case, avoidable in principle. Where war is unavoidable in fact (because one or more parties make unilateral war upon another--such as the unprovoked, illegal, unilateral Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003), I believe that the resulting conflict has no claim to any kind of moral high ground.

That said, I recognize the right of all persons everywhere to defend themselves when assaulted. I also believe that self-defense may take many forms. One model of self-defensive action is Judo. In my view, study of Judo from childhood--both its philosophy and techniques--ought to be compulsory around the world.

Now, I recognize that skeptics who read these words are smirking. What will Judo do against cluster bombs? The obvious answer to the question as asked is "nothing." Those skeptics who think that, by posing such a question, they have just played the insurmountable trump card to Pacifism must think again. The conversation about the moral justification of warfare does not end with this question; rather, it begins with it. For what are we doing with cluster bombs in the first place? Part of the real "problem with Pacifism"--and I concede that there is a real problem with Pacifism--is that it is typically invoked once war, or its preparation, is underway. Too often, Pacificism is a fancy name for passivity. But passivity in the face of evil is not morally justifiable. And the evil of warfare does not reside solely in bombs and bullets. The evil of warfare resides in the heart where murder for particular purposes is legitimated.

I therefore subscribe to an active, even aggressive--dare I say "militant?"--Pacifism. A Pacifism that recognizes the urgent need for a moral revolution to take place; a revolution that will restore to every individual who associates him or herself with war in any form--its preparations, execution, its many industries--the burden of shame that morally healthy individuals ought to feel in such circumstances. This is the task for Pacifism today.

Abdul Ghaffar Khan

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, an associate of Mahatma Gandhi, was a Pathan (or Pashtun)--a member of an ethno-linguistic group located primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan--and a devout Muslim. He was a lifelong advocate of non-violent resistance to injustice. The Ghaffar Khan Society is an informal network of individuals interested in (1) learning about the life and struggles of Ghaffar Khan, (2) the principles that informed his life and struggles, and (3) emulating Ghaffar Khan's example.