07-10-2010, 06:59 AM
My eyes glazed over when I started hearing about the Tea Party movement, at the time. They're cunning bastards, the guys who thought it up - the way they allowed the hint to persist that the TP was the movement that would address the worst corruptions of the current US power structure, so that even some 9/11 Truthers could feel at home under its banner, yet somewhere along the line it morphed from being a potential lethal threat to the crony capitalism of the Bush junta into something that was quite at home bursting the false bubble of hope that Obama claimed to represent. Into a movement that was determined to save America from...wait for it...from SOCIALISM!!
I wasn't thinking of the Tea Party when I brought up the topic of violence, and upon re-reading Lash's essay, I realise that Lash isn't even talking about actual physical violence - he's basically talking about people of good will getting together to put some kind of hex on humans who are preying on other humans. Which may well be impossible, but now that I think of it, it has infinitely more hope of success than hoping that something of lasting good might come out of the TP movement.
It isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, really. The hard part is gathering people of good will and common purpose together - the hard part is defining the common purpose as a group.
But then, maybe that's not as hard as it sounds. I think it would be hard to argue against the proposal that George W. Bush should be put to death for the crimes against humanity he has participated in as President, for the countless lives destroyed as a direct result of the decisions and policies he supported as leader. So as a target for a non-physical, psychic attack, George Bush is a prime candidate. We could join together at regular intervals to wish George Bush into an early grave, and there wouldn't appear to be anything illegal about doing such a thing.
Some people wouldn't like the vibe surrounding such an exercise, and wouldn't be able to participate in it, but for other people, having no viable way to practically resist or fight the evil that currently controls the world, to do nothing when one could at the very least join together with others to put a hex on George W. Bush amounts precisely to the cowardice which Ghandi speaks of in the above quote. And the beauty of it is, it wouldn't matter if hexes are "real" or not. People hearing of a group putting a hex on Bush would be affected by it. If done well it would be good publicity, a force for change. Bush may even be a little perturbed by it if he came to hear of it. Others like Bush might sleep a little less easily at night for fear that they might be next, and they may even change their behaviour as a result.
And we may even end up killing the bastard!
Think about it!
* *
I never knew Ghandi was such a violent man:
I wasn't thinking of the Tea Party when I brought up the topic of violence, and upon re-reading Lash's essay, I realise that Lash isn't even talking about actual physical violence - he's basically talking about people of good will getting together to put some kind of hex on humans who are preying on other humans. Which may well be impossible, but now that I think of it, it has infinitely more hope of success than hoping that something of lasting good might come out of the TP movement.
It isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, really. The hard part is gathering people of good will and common purpose together - the hard part is defining the common purpose as a group.
But then, maybe that's not as hard as it sounds. I think it would be hard to argue against the proposal that George W. Bush should be put to death for the crimes against humanity he has participated in as President, for the countless lives destroyed as a direct result of the decisions and policies he supported as leader. So as a target for a non-physical, psychic attack, George Bush is a prime candidate. We could join together at regular intervals to wish George Bush into an early grave, and there wouldn't appear to be anything illegal about doing such a thing.
Some people wouldn't like the vibe surrounding such an exercise, and wouldn't be able to participate in it, but for other people, having no viable way to practically resist or fight the evil that currently controls the world, to do nothing when one could at the very least join together with others to put a hex on George W. Bush amounts precisely to the cowardice which Ghandi speaks of in the above quote. And the beauty of it is, it wouldn't matter if hexes are "real" or not. People hearing of a group putting a hex on Bush would be affected by it. If done well it would be good publicity, a force for change. Bush may even be a little perturbed by it if he came to hear of it. Others like Bush might sleep a little less easily at night for fear that they might be next, and they may even change their behaviour as a result.
And we may even end up killing the bastard!
Think about it!
* *
I never knew Ghandi was such a violent man:
Quote:[size=12][B]No Cowardice[/SIZE][/B]
[size=12]I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.
My method of nonviolence can never lead toloss of strength, but it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.
My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.
No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be nonviolence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent, and die in the attempt. This is bravery, but not nonviolence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice. In the first case, the man will have love or charity in him. In the second and third cases, there would be a dislike or distrust and fear.
My nonviolence does admit of people, who cannot or will not be nonviolent, holding and making effective use of arms. Let me repeat for the thousandth time that nonviolence is of the strongest, not of the weak.
To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith.
[/SIZE]