(more...)
The Paradox of Choice
Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz's estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.
(more...)
(more...)
I live without cash - and I manage just fine
Armed with a caravan, solar laptop and toothpaste made from washed-up cuttlefish bones, Mark Boyle gave up using cash.
(more...)
(more...)
"What have I learned? That friendship, not money, is real security. That most western poverty is of the spiritual kind. That independence is really interdependence. And that if you don't own a plasma screen TV, people think you're an extremist."
justfortheloveofit.org
We won't find al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
The US wants to defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But politicians don't realize we're fighting the wrong war, in the wrong country.
(more...)
(more...)
The Poverty of Philosophy
The Poverty of Philosophy is a track spoken by Immortal Technique on his first album Revolutionary Vol. 1 (2001). The track is a nod to Karl Marx's book of the same name, which criticizes various economic and philosophical arguments put forth by the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
Visit Immortal Technique on MySpace for more information!
Visit Immortal Technique on MySpace for more information!
Billion Dollar Chocolate Bar
"Gambling should be considered as fun and entertainment, not as a way to make money."(1) The previous statement is fundamentally flawed. Actually, it’s an out-and-out lie. Making money is its principal aim, and an efficient way of doing so, but only for the half on the inside of the pit.
Does the average person gamble for the fun of it? Ask the question another way: does the average person intentionally risk losing their money because they enjoy the experience? The average person gambles to make money. The "fun and entertainment" is what we tell ourselves we’ve had when we lose, to quell those feelings of guilt and frustration. Unconsciously we fool ourselves into believing it was a fair trade; a night out for a hundred bucks, no big deal. But what did you get for your half of the transaction? Nothing. You were sold hope. Imagine a vending machine in which your $1 investment could possibly (read: probably) result in you getting nothing in return. "It’s their choice – the cynical will say. But it is the governments … who are suddenly calling on [the] citizens via vast advertising campaigns to 'Escape to the Jungle' for $2 with a possible return of $1000. Or win 'Instant Millions' for $5 with a possible return of $1 million."(2) Sound familiar? The gaming industry exists to make money, period. Everything else involved, from the “transparency” marketing campaigns, to the annual philanthropy, it’s all business posturing so that the industry can continue to increase its revenues.
__
In the 2007-2008 year (ending 31 March), Ontario gambling net revenue was between $4.8 and $5 billion(3). In the same year, the Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation (referred to as OLG henceforth) claims to have generated "$3.7 billion annually in economic activity in Ontario." These numbers are a bit misleading. As they'll show below, the dollar figures in tangible benefits are substantially less than that. A report on the same page claims that the OLG has produced $4.6 billion as direct and indirect benefits to the host communities since its conception in 1999. That's right, evidently in one year the OLG made in profit, what it contributed to the province over a decade. Although the gamblers out there must appreciate the 10:1 odds, it leaves you to wonder where all that money is going.
According to the Canadian Partnership for Responsible Gambling's "Gambling Digest 2007-08" report, the numbers break down as follows:
- · Total of $4.8 billion in revenue, which averages out to $471 per person, over the age of 18.
· Approximately 1.8% of the provincial revenue is derived from the gaming industry
· $175 million of that is donated to charity, but not without a caveat: "Data should be interpreted with caution, as charitable organizations are not always required to submit financial reports for their gaming operations. It often depends on the amount of revenue raised and/or the value of prizes awarded. Figures may also be estimates only and may exclude licences issued by First Nations and local municipalities." Fair enough. Numbers may be inaccurate.
· $37 million is distributed to Problem Gambling initiatives, again, read the fine print: "There may be overlap between categories and figures may be estimates and/or budgeted amounts only."
· Another $6.8 million is distributed to the Responsible Gaming industry (ie: Crown corporations) for their own responsible gaming initiatives (numbers may be estimates, again)
· 2.1% of the annual revenue was donated to problem gambling, with a national average of 1.4%
· $25 million is distributed to the Federal government, $79 million to the Municipal governments (some, if not all of which they are required to pay)
According to my math, that leaves approximately $4.4 billion dollars in profit. If we excuse a small margin of error, let’s say even another $1 billion, that's an estimated $3.4 billion dollars left on the table. Money changing hands, no services rendered... almost literally.
Returning to the original point of the article, this "entertainment gaming" bluff needs to be pushed all-in. We hear talk of social responsibility as a vision of the OLG, but its very existence is a negation of that tenet. The idea is an attractive nuisance; a seductive chance to win more for less, aimed at the most discouraged portions of our population. Current statistics place the problem gambling prevalence in Ontario at about 3.4%. Unfortunately this number is likely to be much higher, due to the difficulty in accurately measuring individual gambling expenditures. In a demographic study of gaming revenue in Ontario (and as such, how it relates to problem gambling), doctors Robert Wood and Robert Williams provide insight to the corporate mentality that is the essence of social responsibility: "Economic benefits of gambling in Ontario may offset costs arising from problem gambling. For instance, there is usually a significant economic gain to jurisdictions that derive a substantial portion of their gambling revenue from tourists. Not only is there an influx of out of jurisdiction revenue from tourists, but many of the attendant social problems go home with the tourists. [my italics added]"(4)
Gambling (and the direct or indirect encouragement of it) in and of itself, is irresponsible. "Current levels of government-sponsored gambling may be [read: are] contrary to the interests of the general population, and inconsistent with the purposes of government." The creation of government sponsored scholarships, jobs, and charity foundations are well and good, but as citizens, spending $4 billion annually on a phantom chocolate bar is unsustainable and frankly ridiculous.
__
References:
1. http://www.olg.ca/about/economic_benefits/index.jsp
2. The Unconscious Civilization by John Ralston Saul, pg. 149
3. http://www.cprg.ca/articles/Canadian_Gambling_Digest_2007_2008.pdf
4. http://www.gamblingresearch.org/download.sz/Williams_wood.pdf?docid=7617
Misc.
http://www.knowyourlimit.ca
http://www.olg.ca/assets/documents/economic_benefit_reports/ontario.pdf3
http://pobrecito.deviantart.com/art/roulette-37177652
Whose Side Are You On?
Originally posted 26 March 2009
It's with humble embarrassment I admit that until recently, I knew next to nothing about the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Since reading, I've been trying to write an article on the subject which would be succinct enough to captivate an audience of younger generations whose attention span can only be judged in seconds--to be generous. The object of the article is not to instruct, but to provoke interest in the subject, to provoke consideration and dialogue. But how do I go about doing this without covering the entire history, which essentially begins in Genesis? Something tells me I would lose my audience.
Without homogenizing too much, it's important to know that the Jews and Arabs have both been in the area of Israel/Palestine for thousands of years. The only difference is that the Jews have an early documented history, while the Palestinian Arabs don’t. The Palestinian Arabs failed to historically identify themselves early on as an ethnicity and a nation. Does this by extension, nullify their claim to the land? They have lived there as long as the Jews have and have since had an overwhelming majority population. But does living in a place entitle the occupier to claim it as their own? The Jews also believe that the land of Canaan(1) was promised to them by God, literally. Perhaps more importantly, the Jews were promised a homeland in the land of Palestine by the British Government (British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour) in 1917:
"Her Majesty's government views with favor the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country..." sounds fair enough to me.
But wait, two years earlier, the British Government had also promised the Arabs that upon their liberation from the Ottoman Empire, they would have a homeland in Palestine. This is an excerpt from what is known as the Hussein-McMahon Letters:
"...1. That, subject to modifications stated above, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sherief of Mecca...." the proposed area being Israel/Palestine, the modifications were the exclusion of western Syria and most of Lebanon.
Two promises. Two groups of people occupying the same piece of land, both with arguably legitimate claims to it. It needs to be said that neither group are without fault. However, the Palestinians have been painted as terrorists, and the Israeli's have been shown almost exclusively unwavering sympathy and compassion, for a number of reasons, chiefly because of their client status to the United States of America. The majority of us accept this as fact, because this is what we’re told. But still the mind rebels; and one can’t escape the feeling that somehow it’s not all that it appears to be. Even superficial consideration of the topic reveals innumerable questions to its validity. Terrorism is a broad term. “If we like them, they're freedom fighters...if we don't like them, they're terrorists. In the unlikely case we can't make up our minds, they're temporarily only guerrillas.”(2) We are meant to believe in this context that the Palestinians are a threat to democracy and as such, they become the terrorist enemy. It has been the goal of our respective governments to define the meaning of terrorism in such a way that the general population will view it as black and white, good versus evil. Yet “U.S. terrorism is an oxymoron, on par with “thunderous silence” or “U.S. aggression.” Israeli state terrorism escapes under the same literary convention…”(3) But why are the Palestinians terrorists? Don’t they breathe the same air as us?
Without trivializing the hardships which the Jews have suffered, it's difficult to ignore the blatant hypocrisy in what they're doing to the Palestinians. While this is certainly not the perspective of all Zionists, it's important to note the political climate of then and now:
"We interpret the war not just as a victory, but as a kind of providential messianic event that changed history permanently and gave Israel the power to dictate the future....[the new Zionism] says that we will not give any territory back; if the Arabs don't like it here they can get the hell out, and if they stay we will not give them human rights, and being Jewish is more important than being democratic."(4)
Although that was quoted in 1987, it still applies today. The Palestinians have no home. They have the Occupied Territories of Gaza and the West Bank. Imagine waking up every morning with no identity. An unwelcome visitor in an unfriendly house. You are not a Palestinian, even though you are by right of your genealogical heritage. You are a Jerusalemite. They are terrorists because of our subjective definition of "terrorism". But consider the facts -- in the 1940s, prior to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the population of Palestinians was more than double that of the Jewish population. Since 1948, the Jewish population has been mostly the majority, but only by about 55% to 45% (bearing in mind that the total population of Israel is counted at approximately 7 million). Yet the Palestinians are squeezed into smaller and smaller pockets of land, or they leave entirely.
Can you honestly say, with conviction, that you would not take up arms against your occupier under these conditions? Consider the options.
"It is at a time like this that the voices of the bereaved, those courageous enough not to hate, should be listened to most closely(5):
My beloved son Arik, my own flesh and blood, was murdered by the Palestinians. My tall, blue-eyed, golden-haired son who was always smiling with the innocence of a child and the understanding of an adult. My son.
If to hit his killers, innocent Palestinian children and other civilians would have to be killed, I would ask the security forces to wait for another opportunity. If the security forces were to kill innocent Palestinians as well, I would tell them they were no better than my son's killers.
We lost sight of our ethics long before the suicide bombings. The breaking point was when we started to control another nation.
My son Arik was born into democracy with a chance for a decent, settled life. Arik's killer was born into an appalling occupation, into an ethical chaos. Had my son been born in his stead, he may have ended up doing the same. Had I myself been born into the political and ethical chaos that is the Palestinians' daily reality, I would certainly have tried to kill and hurt the occupier; had I not, I would have betrayed my essence as a free man.
Let all the self-righteous who speak of ruthless Palestinian murderers take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what they would have done had they been the ones living under occupation. I can say for myself that I, Yitzhak Frankenthal, would have undoubtedly become a freedom fighter and would have killed as many on the other side as I possibly could.
My son Arik was murdered when he was a soldier by Palestinian fighters who believe in the ethical basis of their struggle against occupation. My son Arik was not murdered because he was Jewish but because he is part of a nation that occupies the territory of another.
I know that these concepts are unpalatable, but I must voice them loud and clear, because they come from my heart -- the heart of a father whose son did not get to live because his people were blinded with power."(6)
It's not necessary to choose a side. The choice, for me, is currently obvious. The oppressed or the oppressor. More important than the particular alignment, is where to go from here. Like the Native Americans in our own countries, it is impossible to simply give the land back, the state of Israel and its people are established now. But the denial of basic civil and human rights to the Palestinians needs to be culled. These people deserve their freedom. They deserve an identity. Our very awareness of the conflict and its injustices, as North American countries (with the influence we enjoy over the rest of the world), could be an extremely large step towards their liberty. Don't remain uninformed.
--------------------------
1. Genesis 17:8 - "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."
2. Carl Sagan, Contact, Part I : The Message, Ch. 2, "Coherent Light", 1985
3. Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, 1989, pg 114
4. Article on Abba Eban by Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 14 June 1987, pg 3
5. Paul Middleton, Israel vs. Palestine: What's it all about?, 2007, pg 95
6. From a speech given by the chairman of Families Forum at a rally in Jerusalem. Published in the The Independent, 2 August 2002.
--------------------------
Resources
Online:
Current coffin count in the Israel vs Palestine conflict - http://www.moiz.ca/coffin2.htm
A Brief History of Israel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EATEeKJcTA
Map of Israel throughout history - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FspfOI_YRU
Literature:
Noam Chomsky: Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians
Paul Middleton: Israel vs Palestine: What's it all about?
Kathleen Christison: Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy
It's with humble embarrassment I admit that until recently, I knew next to nothing about the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Since reading, I've been trying to write an article on the subject which would be succinct enough to captivate an audience of younger generations whose attention span can only be judged in seconds--to be generous. The object of the article is not to instruct, but to provoke interest in the subject, to provoke consideration and dialogue. But how do I go about doing this without covering the entire history, which essentially begins in Genesis? Something tells me I would lose my audience.
Without homogenizing too much, it's important to know that the Jews and Arabs have both been in the area of Israel/Palestine for thousands of years. The only difference is that the Jews have an early documented history, while the Palestinian Arabs don’t. The Palestinian Arabs failed to historically identify themselves early on as an ethnicity and a nation. Does this by extension, nullify their claim to the land? They have lived there as long as the Jews have and have since had an overwhelming majority population. But does living in a place entitle the occupier to claim it as their own? The Jews also believe that the land of Canaan(1) was promised to them by God, literally. Perhaps more importantly, the Jews were promised a homeland in the land of Palestine by the British Government (British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour) in 1917:
"Her Majesty's government views with favor the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country..." sounds fair enough to me.
But wait, two years earlier, the British Government had also promised the Arabs that upon their liberation from the Ottoman Empire, they would have a homeland in Palestine. This is an excerpt from what is known as the Hussein-McMahon Letters:
"...1. That, subject to modifications stated above, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sherief of Mecca...." the proposed area being Israel/Palestine, the modifications were the exclusion of western Syria and most of Lebanon.
Two promises. Two groups of people occupying the same piece of land, both with arguably legitimate claims to it. It needs to be said that neither group are without fault. However, the Palestinians have been painted as terrorists, and the Israeli's have been shown almost exclusively unwavering sympathy and compassion, for a number of reasons, chiefly because of their client status to the United States of America. The majority of us accept this as fact, because this is what we’re told. But still the mind rebels; and one can’t escape the feeling that somehow it’s not all that it appears to be. Even superficial consideration of the topic reveals innumerable questions to its validity. Terrorism is a broad term. “If we like them, they're freedom fighters...if we don't like them, they're terrorists. In the unlikely case we can't make up our minds, they're temporarily only guerrillas.”(2) We are meant to believe in this context that the Palestinians are a threat to democracy and as such, they become the terrorist enemy. It has been the goal of our respective governments to define the meaning of terrorism in such a way that the general population will view it as black and white, good versus evil. Yet “U.S. terrorism is an oxymoron, on par with “thunderous silence” or “U.S. aggression.” Israeli state terrorism escapes under the same literary convention…”(3) But why are the Palestinians terrorists? Don’t they breathe the same air as us?
Without trivializing the hardships which the Jews have suffered, it's difficult to ignore the blatant hypocrisy in what they're doing to the Palestinians. While this is certainly not the perspective of all Zionists, it's important to note the political climate of then and now:
"We interpret the war not just as a victory, but as a kind of providential messianic event that changed history permanently and gave Israel the power to dictate the future....[the new Zionism] says that we will not give any territory back; if the Arabs don't like it here they can get the hell out, and if they stay we will not give them human rights, and being Jewish is more important than being democratic."(4)
Although that was quoted in 1987, it still applies today. The Palestinians have no home. They have the Occupied Territories of Gaza and the West Bank. Imagine waking up every morning with no identity. An unwelcome visitor in an unfriendly house. You are not a Palestinian, even though you are by right of your genealogical heritage. You are a Jerusalemite. They are terrorists because of our subjective definition of "terrorism". But consider the facts -- in the 1940s, prior to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the population of Palestinians was more than double that of the Jewish population. Since 1948, the Jewish population has been mostly the majority, but only by about 55% to 45% (bearing in mind that the total population of Israel is counted at approximately 7 million). Yet the Palestinians are squeezed into smaller and smaller pockets of land, or they leave entirely.
Can you honestly say, with conviction, that you would not take up arms against your occupier under these conditions? Consider the options.
"It is at a time like this that the voices of the bereaved, those courageous enough not to hate, should be listened to most closely(5):
My beloved son Arik, my own flesh and blood, was murdered by the Palestinians. My tall, blue-eyed, golden-haired son who was always smiling with the innocence of a child and the understanding of an adult. My son.
If to hit his killers, innocent Palestinian children and other civilians would have to be killed, I would ask the security forces to wait for another opportunity. If the security forces were to kill innocent Palestinians as well, I would tell them they were no better than my son's killers.
We lost sight of our ethics long before the suicide bombings. The breaking point was when we started to control another nation.
My son Arik was born into democracy with a chance for a decent, settled life. Arik's killer was born into an appalling occupation, into an ethical chaos. Had my son been born in his stead, he may have ended up doing the same. Had I myself been born into the political and ethical chaos that is the Palestinians' daily reality, I would certainly have tried to kill and hurt the occupier; had I not, I would have betrayed my essence as a free man.
Let all the self-righteous who speak of ruthless Palestinian murderers take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what they would have done had they been the ones living under occupation. I can say for myself that I, Yitzhak Frankenthal, would have undoubtedly become a freedom fighter and would have killed as many on the other side as I possibly could.
My son Arik was murdered when he was a soldier by Palestinian fighters who believe in the ethical basis of their struggle against occupation. My son Arik was not murdered because he was Jewish but because he is part of a nation that occupies the territory of another.
I know that these concepts are unpalatable, but I must voice them loud and clear, because they come from my heart -- the heart of a father whose son did not get to live because his people were blinded with power."(6)
It's not necessary to choose a side. The choice, for me, is currently obvious. The oppressed or the oppressor. More important than the particular alignment, is where to go from here. Like the Native Americans in our own countries, it is impossible to simply give the land back, the state of Israel and its people are established now. But the denial of basic civil and human rights to the Palestinians needs to be culled. These people deserve their freedom. They deserve an identity. Our very awareness of the conflict and its injustices, as North American countries (with the influence we enjoy over the rest of the world), could be an extremely large step towards their liberty. Don't remain uninformed.
--------------------------
1. Genesis 17:8 - "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."
2. Carl Sagan, Contact, Part I : The Message, Ch. 2, "Coherent Light", 1985
3. Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, 1989, pg 114
4. Article on Abba Eban by Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 14 June 1987, pg 3
5. Paul Middleton, Israel vs. Palestine: What's it all about?, 2007, pg 95
6. From a speech given by the chairman of Families Forum at a rally in Jerusalem. Published in the The Independent, 2 August 2002.
--------------------------
Resources
Online:
Current coffin count in the Israel vs Palestine conflict - http://www.moiz.ca/coffin2.htm
A Brief History of Israel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EATEeKJcTA
Map of Israel throughout history - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FspfOI_YRU
Literature:
Noam Chomsky: Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians
Paul Middleton: Israel vs Palestine: What's it all about?
Kathleen Christison: Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy
Note on the Margin
Originally posted 14 February 2009
The following is an excerpt from Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson; it recalls a passage Che recorded while he was writing Notas de Viaje (The Motorcycle Diaries). At age 25, he received a political revelation which seemed to prevision the path his life would take; three years later, under Fidel Castro's leadership, he would join other revolutionaries with the intention of overthrowing Cuban dictator, General Fulgencio Batista.
Without knowing where the "revelation" had taken place, Ernesto had situated himself in "a mountain village under a cold star-filled night sky." A great blackness surrounded him, and a man was there with him, lost in the darkness, visible only by the whiteness of his four front teeth. "I don't know if it was the personality of the individual or the atmosphere that prepared me to receive the revelation, but I know that I had heard the arguments many times by different people and they had never impressed me. In reality, our speaker was an interesting guy; when he was young he had fled some European country to escape the dogmatizing knife; he knew the taste of fear (one of the experiences that makes you value life), and afterwards, after rolling from country to country and compiling thousands of adventures, he had come to rest his bones in this remote region where he patiently awaited the coming of a great event.
"After the trivial phrases and common places with which each put forth his positions, the conversation languished, and we were about to part ways. Then, with the same rascally boy's smile which always accompanied him, accentuating the disparity of his four front incisors, he let slip: 'The future belongs to the people, and little by little or in one fell swoop they will seize power, here and in the whole world. The bad thing is that they have to become civilized, and this can't happen before, but only after taking power. They will become civilized only by learning at the cost of their own errors, which will be serious ones, and which will cost many innocent lives. Or perhaps not, perhaps they won't be innocent because they will have committed the enormous sin contra natura signified by lacking the capacity to adapt.
"'All of them, all the unadaptable ones, you and I, for example, will die cursing the power we, with enormous sacrifice, helped to create....In its impersonal form, the revolution will take our lives, and even utilize the memory of that which for them remains exemplary, as a domesticating instrument for the youth who will come after. My sin is greater, because I, more subtle and with more experience, call it what you wish, will die knowing that my sacrifice is due only to an obstinacy which symbolizes the rotten civilization that is crumbling....'"
This mystery speaker, by inference a Marxist refugee from Stalin's pogroms whose conscious sin was his "inability to adapt" to the new power wielded by the uncivilized masses, now turned his premonitory attention to Ernesto.
"'You will die with the fist clenched and jaw tense, in perfect demonstration of hate and of combat, because you are not a symbol (something inanimate taken as an example), you are an authentic member of a society which is crumbling: the spirit of the beehive speaks through your mouth and moves in your actions; you are as useful as I, but you don't know the usefulness of the help you give to the society which sacrifices you.'"
And now, duly warned of the consequences of the revolutionary path, came Ernesto's own "revelation." "I saw his teeth and the picaresque expression with which he took a jump on history, I felt the squeeze of his hands and, like a distant murmur, the protocolar salute of farewell....In spite of his words, I now knew...I will be with the people, and I know it because I see it etched in the night that I, the eclectic dissector of doctrines and psychoanalyst of dogmas, howling like one possessed, will assault the barricades or trenches, will bathe my weapon in blood and, mad with fury, will slit the throat of any enemy who falls into my hands.
"And I see, as if an enormous tiredness shoots down my recent exaltation, how I die as a sacrifice to the true standardizing revolution of wills, pronouncing the exemplary mea culpa. And I feel my nostrils dilated, tasting the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood, of dead enemy; now my body contorts, ready for the fight, and I prepare my being as if it were a sacred place so that in it the bestial howling of the triumphant proletariat can resonate with new vibrations and new hopes."
This passage reveals the extrodinarily passionate--and melodramatic--impulses at work inside Ernesto Guevara at the age of twenty-five. Powerful and violent, uncannily precognitive of Ernesto Guevara's own future death and the posthumous exploitation of his legacy by many so-called revolutionaries, "Note on the Margin" must be seen as a decisive personal testimonial, for the sentiments it contained would soon emerge from the penumbra of his submerged thoughts to find expression in his future actions.
On The Shortness of Life
Originally posted 6 March 2009
What follows are several excerpts from Lucius Annaeus Seneca's essay: On The Shortness of Life which I found either interesting, or profound, or insightful. The basic premise of the essay is that life is short and often squandered, and the portion of life which we actually live is only a fraction of the time that we are alive.
"Believe me, it takes a great man and one who has risen far above human weaknesses not to allow any of his time to be filched from him, and it follows that the life of such a man is very long because he has devoted wholly to himself whatever time he has had. None of it lay neglected and idle; none of it was under the control of another, for, guarding it most grudgingly, he found nothing that was worthy to be taken in exchange for his time. And so that man had time enough, but those who have been robbed of much of their life by the public, have necessarily had too little of it."
"All those who summon you to themselves, turn you away from your own self."
"Everyone hurries his life on and suffers from a yearning for the future and a weariness of the present. But he who bestows all of his time on his own needs, who plans out every day as if it were his last, neither longs for nor fears the morrow."
"And so there is no reason for you to think that any man has lived long because he has grey hairs or wrinkles; he has not lived long—he has existed long. For what if you should think that that man had had a long voyage who had been caught by a fierce storm as soon as he left harbour, and, swept hither and thither by a succession of winds that raged from different quarters, had been driven in a circle around the same course? Not much voyaging did he have, but much tossing about."
"Men trifle with the most precious thing in the world; but they are blind to it because it is an incorporeal thing, because it does not come beneath the sight of the eyes, and for this reason it is counted a very cheap thing—nay, of almost no value at all."
"Life will follow the path it started upon, and will neither reverse nor check its course; it will make no noise, it will not remind you of its swiftness. Silent it will glide on; it will not prolong itself at the command of a king, or at the applause of the populace. Just as it was started on its first day, so it will run; nowhere will it turn aside, nowhere will it delay. And what will be the result? You have been engrossed, life hastens by; meanwhile death will be at hand, for which, willy nilly, you must find leisure."
"Can anything be sillier than the point of view of certain people—I mean those who boast of their foresight? They keep themselves very busily engaged in order that they may be able to live better; they spend life in making ready to live! They form their purposes with a view to the distant future; yet postponement is the greatest waste of life; it deprives them of each day as it comes, it snatches from them the present by promising something hereafter."
"Life is divided into three periods—that which has been, that which is, that which will be. Of these the present time is short, the future is doubtful, the past is certain. For the last is the one over which Fortune has lost control, is the one which cannot be brought back under any man's power. But men who are engrossed lose this; for they have no time to look back upon the past, and even if they should have, it is not pleasant to recall something they must view with regret. They are, therefore, unwilling to direct their thoughts backward to ill-spent hours, and those whose vices become obvious if they review the past, even the vices which were disguised under some allurement of momentary pleasure, do not have the courage to revert to those hours. No one willingly turns his thought back to the past, unless all his acts have been submitted to the censorship of his conscience, which is never deceived; he who has ambitiously coveted, proudly scorned, recklessly conquered, treacherously betrayed, greedily seized, or lavishly squandered, must fear his own memory. And yet this is the part of our time that is sacred and set apart, put beyond the reach of all human mishaps, and removed from the dominion of Fortune, the part which is disquieted by no want, by no fear, by no attacks of disease; this can neither be troubled nor be snatched away—it is an everlasting and unanxious possession. The present offers only one day at a time, and each by minutes; but all the days of past time will appear when you bid them, they will suffer you to behold them and keep them at your will—a thing which those who are engrossed have no time to do. The mind that is untroubled and tranquil has the power to roam into all the parts of its life; but the minds of the engrossed, just as if weighted by a yoke, cannot turn and look behind. And so their life vanishes into an abyss; and as it does no good, no matter how much water you pour into a vessel, if there is no bottom to receive and hold it, so with time—it makes no difference how much is given; if there is nothing for it to settle upon, it passes out through the chinks and holes of the mind. Present time is very brief, so brief, indeed, that to some there seems to be none; for it is always in motion, it ever flows and hurries on; it ceases to be before it has come, and can no more brook delay than the firmament or the stars, whose ever unresting movement never lets them abide in the same track. The engrossed, therefore, are concerned with present time alone, and it is so brief that it cannot be grasped, and even this is filched away from them, distracted as they are among many things."
"But for those whose life is passed remote from all business, why should [this] not be ample? None of it is assigned to another, none of it is scattered in this direction and that, none of it is committed to Fortune, none of it perishes from neglect, none is subtracted by wasteful giving, none of it is unused; the whole of it, so to speak, yields income. And so, however small the amount of it, it is abundantly sufficient, and therefore, whenever his last day shall come, the wise man will not hesitate to go to meet death with steady step."
"....that man is at leisure, who has also a perception of his leisure. But this other who is half alive, who, in order that he may know the postures of his own body, needs someone to tell him—how can he be the master of any of his time?"
"O, what blindness does great prosperity cast upon our minds!"
"Of all men they alone are at leisure who take time for philosophy, they alone really live; for they are not content to be good guardians of their own lifetime only. They annex every age to their own; all the years that have gone over them are an addition to their store. Unless we are most ungrateful, all those men, glorious fashioners of holy thoughts, were born for us; for us they have prepared a way of life. By other men's labours we are led to the sight of things most beautiful that have been wrested from darkness and brought into light; from no age are we shut out, we have access to all ages, and if it is our wish, by greatness of mind, to pass beyond the narrow limits of human weakness, there is a great stretch of time through which we may roam. We may argue with Socrates, we may doubt with Carneades, find peace with Epicurus, overcome human nature with the Stoics, exceed it with the Cynics. Since Nature allows us to enter into fellowship with every age, why should we not turn from this paltry and fleeting span of time and surrender ourselves with all our soul to the past, which is boundless, which is eternal, which we share with our betters?"
"No one of these [philosophers] will force you to die, but all will teach you how to die; no one of these will wear out your years, but each will add his own years to yours; conversations with no one of these will bring you peril, the friendship of none will endanger your life, the courting of none will tax your purse. From them you will take whatever you wish; it will be no fault of theirs if you do not draw the utmost that you can desire. What happiness, what a fair old age awaits him who has offered himself as a client to these! He will have friends from whom he may seek counsel on matters great and small, whom he may consult every day about himself, from whom he may hear truth without insult, praise without flattery, and after whose likeness he may fashion himself."
"....there is nothing that the lapse of time does not tear down and remove. But the works which philosophy has consecrated cannot be harmed; no age will destroy them, no age reduce them; the following and each succeeding age will but increase the reverence for them, since envy works upon what is close at hand, and things that are far off we are more free to admire....the life of the philosopher, therefore, has wide range, and he is not confined by the same bounds that shut others in. He alone is freed from the limitations of the human race; all ages serve him as if a god. Has some time passed by? This he embraces by recollection. Is time present? This he uses. Is it still to come? This he anticipates. He makes his life long by combining all times into one."
"But those who forget the past, neglect the present, and fear for the future have a life that is very brief and troubled; when they have reached the end of it, the poor wretches perceive too late that for such a long while they have been busied in doing nothing. Nor because they sometimes invoke death, have you any reason to think it any proof that they find life long. In their folly they are harassed by shifting emotions which rush them into the very things they dread; they often pray for death because they fear it. And, too, you have no reason to think that this is any proof that they are living a long time—the fact that the day often seems to them long, the fact that they complain that the hours pass slowly until the time set for dinner arrives; for, whenever their engrossments fail them, they are restless because they are left with nothing to do, and they do not know how to dispose of their leisure or to drag out the time. And so they strive for something else to occupy them, and all the intervening time is irksome....all postponement of something they hope for seems long to them. Yet the time which they enjoy is short and swift, and it is made much shorter by their own fault; for they flee from one pleasure to another and cannot remain fixed in one desire. Their days are not long to them, but hateful; yet, on the other hand, how scanty seem the nights which they spend in the arms of a harlot or in wine!....they lose the day in expectation of the night, and the night in fear of the dawn."
"When the King of Persia, in all the insolence of his pride, spread his army over the vast plains and could not grasp its number but simply its measure, he shed copious tears because inside of a hundred years not a man of such a mighty army would be alive. But he who wept was to bring upon them their fate, was to give some to their doom on the sea, some on the land, some in battle, some in flight, and within a short time was to destroy all those for whose hundredth year he had such fear. And why is it that even their joys are uneasy from fear? Because they do not rest on stable causes, but are perturbed as groundlessly as they are born....all the greatest blessings are a source of anxiety, and at no time is fortune less wisely trusted than when it is best; to maintain prosperity there is need of other prosperity, and in behalf of the prayers that have turned out well we must make still other prayers. For everything that comes to us from chance is unstable, and the higher it rises, the more liable it is to fall."
"....what is doomed to perish brings pleasure to no one; very wretched, therefore, and not merely short, must the life of those be who work hard to gain what they must work harder to keep. By great toil they attain what they wish, and with anxiety hold what they have attained; meanwhile they take no account of time that will never more return."
"Reasons for anxiety will never be lacking, whether born of prosperity or of wretchedness; life pushes on in a succession of engrossments. We shall always pray for leisure, but never enjoy it."
"Now while the blood is hot, we must enter with brisk step upon the better course. In this kind of life there awaits much that is good to know—the love and practice of the virtues, forgetfulness of the passions, knowledge of living and dying, and a life of deep repose."
"The condition of all who are engrossed is wretched, but most wretched is the condition of those who labour at engrossments that are not even their own, who regulate their sleep by that of another, their walk by the pace of another, who are under orders in case of the freest things in the world—loving and hating. If these wish to know how short their life is, let them reflect how small a part of it is their own."
"And so when you see a man often wearing the robe of office, when you see one whose name is famous in the Forum, do not envy him; those things are bought at the price of life. They will waste all their years, in order that they may have one year reckoned by their name. Life has left some in the midst of their first struggles, before they could climb up to the height of their ambition; some, when they have crawled up through a thousand indignities to the crowning dignity, have been possessed by the unhappy thought that they have but toiled for an inscription on a tomb; some who have come to extreme old age, while they adjusted it to new hopes as if it were youth, have had it fail from sheer weakness in the midst of their great and shameless endeavours. Shameful is he whose breath leaves him in the midst of a trial when, advanced in years and still courting the applause of an ignorant circle, he is pleading for some litigant who is the veriest stranger; disgraceful is he who, exhausted more quickly by his mode of living than by his labour, collapses in the very midst of his duties; disgraceful is he who dies in the act of receiving payments on account, and draws a smile from his long delayed heir."
"No one keeps death in view, no one refrains from far-reaching hopes; some men, indeed, even arrange for things that lie beyond life—huge masses of tombs and dedications of public works and gifts for their funeral-pyres and ostentatious funerals. But, in very truth, the funerals of such men ought to be conducted by the light of torches and wax tapers, as though they had lived but the tiniest span."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC–AD 65); Stoic Roman philosopher, tutor and advisor to emperor Nero.
What follows are several excerpts from Lucius Annaeus Seneca's essay: On The Shortness of Life which I found either interesting, or profound, or insightful. The basic premise of the essay is that life is short and often squandered, and the portion of life which we actually live is only a fraction of the time that we are alive.
"Believe me, it takes a great man and one who has risen far above human weaknesses not to allow any of his time to be filched from him, and it follows that the life of such a man is very long because he has devoted wholly to himself whatever time he has had. None of it lay neglected and idle; none of it was under the control of another, for, guarding it most grudgingly, he found nothing that was worthy to be taken in exchange for his time. And so that man had time enough, but those who have been robbed of much of their life by the public, have necessarily had too little of it."
"All those who summon you to themselves, turn you away from your own self."
"Everyone hurries his life on and suffers from a yearning for the future and a weariness of the present. But he who bestows all of his time on his own needs, who plans out every day as if it were his last, neither longs for nor fears the morrow."
"And so there is no reason for you to think that any man has lived long because he has grey hairs or wrinkles; he has not lived long—he has existed long. For what if you should think that that man had had a long voyage who had been caught by a fierce storm as soon as he left harbour, and, swept hither and thither by a succession of winds that raged from different quarters, had been driven in a circle around the same course? Not much voyaging did he have, but much tossing about."
"Men trifle with the most precious thing in the world; but they are blind to it because it is an incorporeal thing, because it does not come beneath the sight of the eyes, and for this reason it is counted a very cheap thing—nay, of almost no value at all."
"Life will follow the path it started upon, and will neither reverse nor check its course; it will make no noise, it will not remind you of its swiftness. Silent it will glide on; it will not prolong itself at the command of a king, or at the applause of the populace. Just as it was started on its first day, so it will run; nowhere will it turn aside, nowhere will it delay. And what will be the result? You have been engrossed, life hastens by; meanwhile death will be at hand, for which, willy nilly, you must find leisure."
"Can anything be sillier than the point of view of certain people—I mean those who boast of their foresight? They keep themselves very busily engaged in order that they may be able to live better; they spend life in making ready to live! They form their purposes with a view to the distant future; yet postponement is the greatest waste of life; it deprives them of each day as it comes, it snatches from them the present by promising something hereafter."
"Life is divided into three periods—that which has been, that which is, that which will be. Of these the present time is short, the future is doubtful, the past is certain. For the last is the one over which Fortune has lost control, is the one which cannot be brought back under any man's power. But men who are engrossed lose this; for they have no time to look back upon the past, and even if they should have, it is not pleasant to recall something they must view with regret. They are, therefore, unwilling to direct their thoughts backward to ill-spent hours, and those whose vices become obvious if they review the past, even the vices which were disguised under some allurement of momentary pleasure, do not have the courage to revert to those hours. No one willingly turns his thought back to the past, unless all his acts have been submitted to the censorship of his conscience, which is never deceived; he who has ambitiously coveted, proudly scorned, recklessly conquered, treacherously betrayed, greedily seized, or lavishly squandered, must fear his own memory. And yet this is the part of our time that is sacred and set apart, put beyond the reach of all human mishaps, and removed from the dominion of Fortune, the part which is disquieted by no want, by no fear, by no attacks of disease; this can neither be troubled nor be snatched away—it is an everlasting and unanxious possession. The present offers only one day at a time, and each by minutes; but all the days of past time will appear when you bid them, they will suffer you to behold them and keep them at your will—a thing which those who are engrossed have no time to do. The mind that is untroubled and tranquil has the power to roam into all the parts of its life; but the minds of the engrossed, just as if weighted by a yoke, cannot turn and look behind. And so their life vanishes into an abyss; and as it does no good, no matter how much water you pour into a vessel, if there is no bottom to receive and hold it, so with time—it makes no difference how much is given; if there is nothing for it to settle upon, it passes out through the chinks and holes of the mind. Present time is very brief, so brief, indeed, that to some there seems to be none; for it is always in motion, it ever flows and hurries on; it ceases to be before it has come, and can no more brook delay than the firmament or the stars, whose ever unresting movement never lets them abide in the same track. The engrossed, therefore, are concerned with present time alone, and it is so brief that it cannot be grasped, and even this is filched away from them, distracted as they are among many things."
"But for those whose life is passed remote from all business, why should [this] not be ample? None of it is assigned to another, none of it is scattered in this direction and that, none of it is committed to Fortune, none of it perishes from neglect, none is subtracted by wasteful giving, none of it is unused; the whole of it, so to speak, yields income. And so, however small the amount of it, it is abundantly sufficient, and therefore, whenever his last day shall come, the wise man will not hesitate to go to meet death with steady step."
"....that man is at leisure, who has also a perception of his leisure. But this other who is half alive, who, in order that he may know the postures of his own body, needs someone to tell him—how can he be the master of any of his time?"
"O, what blindness does great prosperity cast upon our minds!"
"Of all men they alone are at leisure who take time for philosophy, they alone really live; for they are not content to be good guardians of their own lifetime only. They annex every age to their own; all the years that have gone over them are an addition to their store. Unless we are most ungrateful, all those men, glorious fashioners of holy thoughts, were born for us; for us they have prepared a way of life. By other men's labours we are led to the sight of things most beautiful that have been wrested from darkness and brought into light; from no age are we shut out, we have access to all ages, and if it is our wish, by greatness of mind, to pass beyond the narrow limits of human weakness, there is a great stretch of time through which we may roam. We may argue with Socrates, we may doubt with Carneades, find peace with Epicurus, overcome human nature with the Stoics, exceed it with the Cynics. Since Nature allows us to enter into fellowship with every age, why should we not turn from this paltry and fleeting span of time and surrender ourselves with all our soul to the past, which is boundless, which is eternal, which we share with our betters?"
"No one of these [philosophers] will force you to die, but all will teach you how to die; no one of these will wear out your years, but each will add his own years to yours; conversations with no one of these will bring you peril, the friendship of none will endanger your life, the courting of none will tax your purse. From them you will take whatever you wish; it will be no fault of theirs if you do not draw the utmost that you can desire. What happiness, what a fair old age awaits him who has offered himself as a client to these! He will have friends from whom he may seek counsel on matters great and small, whom he may consult every day about himself, from whom he may hear truth without insult, praise without flattery, and after whose likeness he may fashion himself."
"....there is nothing that the lapse of time does not tear down and remove. But the works which philosophy has consecrated cannot be harmed; no age will destroy them, no age reduce them; the following and each succeeding age will but increase the reverence for them, since envy works upon what is close at hand, and things that are far off we are more free to admire....the life of the philosopher, therefore, has wide range, and he is not confined by the same bounds that shut others in. He alone is freed from the limitations of the human race; all ages serve him as if a god. Has some time passed by? This he embraces by recollection. Is time present? This he uses. Is it still to come? This he anticipates. He makes his life long by combining all times into one."
"But those who forget the past, neglect the present, and fear for the future have a life that is very brief and troubled; when they have reached the end of it, the poor wretches perceive too late that for such a long while they have been busied in doing nothing. Nor because they sometimes invoke death, have you any reason to think it any proof that they find life long. In their folly they are harassed by shifting emotions which rush them into the very things they dread; they often pray for death because they fear it. And, too, you have no reason to think that this is any proof that they are living a long time—the fact that the day often seems to them long, the fact that they complain that the hours pass slowly until the time set for dinner arrives; for, whenever their engrossments fail them, they are restless because they are left with nothing to do, and they do not know how to dispose of their leisure or to drag out the time. And so they strive for something else to occupy them, and all the intervening time is irksome....all postponement of something they hope for seems long to them. Yet the time which they enjoy is short and swift, and it is made much shorter by their own fault; for they flee from one pleasure to another and cannot remain fixed in one desire. Their days are not long to them, but hateful; yet, on the other hand, how scanty seem the nights which they spend in the arms of a harlot or in wine!....they lose the day in expectation of the night, and the night in fear of the dawn."
"When the King of Persia, in all the insolence of his pride, spread his army over the vast plains and could not grasp its number but simply its measure, he shed copious tears because inside of a hundred years not a man of such a mighty army would be alive. But he who wept was to bring upon them their fate, was to give some to their doom on the sea, some on the land, some in battle, some in flight, and within a short time was to destroy all those for whose hundredth year he had such fear. And why is it that even their joys are uneasy from fear? Because they do not rest on stable causes, but are perturbed as groundlessly as they are born....all the greatest blessings are a source of anxiety, and at no time is fortune less wisely trusted than when it is best; to maintain prosperity there is need of other prosperity, and in behalf of the prayers that have turned out well we must make still other prayers. For everything that comes to us from chance is unstable, and the higher it rises, the more liable it is to fall."
"....what is doomed to perish brings pleasure to no one; very wretched, therefore, and not merely short, must the life of those be who work hard to gain what they must work harder to keep. By great toil they attain what they wish, and with anxiety hold what they have attained; meanwhile they take no account of time that will never more return."
"Reasons for anxiety will never be lacking, whether born of prosperity or of wretchedness; life pushes on in a succession of engrossments. We shall always pray for leisure, but never enjoy it."
"Now while the blood is hot, we must enter with brisk step upon the better course. In this kind of life there awaits much that is good to know—the love and practice of the virtues, forgetfulness of the passions, knowledge of living and dying, and a life of deep repose."
"The condition of all who are engrossed is wretched, but most wretched is the condition of those who labour at engrossments that are not even their own, who regulate their sleep by that of another, their walk by the pace of another, who are under orders in case of the freest things in the world—loving and hating. If these wish to know how short their life is, let them reflect how small a part of it is their own."
"And so when you see a man often wearing the robe of office, when you see one whose name is famous in the Forum, do not envy him; those things are bought at the price of life. They will waste all their years, in order that they may have one year reckoned by their name. Life has left some in the midst of their first struggles, before they could climb up to the height of their ambition; some, when they have crawled up through a thousand indignities to the crowning dignity, have been possessed by the unhappy thought that they have but toiled for an inscription on a tomb; some who have come to extreme old age, while they adjusted it to new hopes as if it were youth, have had it fail from sheer weakness in the midst of their great and shameless endeavours. Shameful is he whose breath leaves him in the midst of a trial when, advanced in years and still courting the applause of an ignorant circle, he is pleading for some litigant who is the veriest stranger; disgraceful is he who, exhausted more quickly by his mode of living than by his labour, collapses in the very midst of his duties; disgraceful is he who dies in the act of receiving payments on account, and draws a smile from his long delayed heir."
"No one keeps death in view, no one refrains from far-reaching hopes; some men, indeed, even arrange for things that lie beyond life—huge masses of tombs and dedications of public works and gifts for their funeral-pyres and ostentatious funerals. But, in very truth, the funerals of such men ought to be conducted by the light of torches and wax tapers, as though they had lived but the tiniest span."
The Revolutionary Process
Originally posted 17 June 2009
The following is excerpted from Pacifism As Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America, by Ward Churchill. Originally published as an essay in 1986 (Pacifism as Pathology: Notes on an American Pseudopraxis), it has been noted and republished under its current title, with new introductions and commentary by various critics. The underlying message of the essay is not to incite a full out violent revolution, it simply advocates the occasional necessity of violence in obtaining any substantial social reform. This requires consideration - in my opinion - especially in North America, where political consciousness and activism - and moreover - the demands we make of our elected officials are lackadaisical. The essay doesn't denounce pacifism entirely, it suggests that all forms of resistance are required to create social change. In a nutshell, Ward Churchill criticizes pacifism as ineffective, hypocritical and unconsciously racist, among other things. He explains that by strictly adhering to only pacifist means and denouncing other forms of protest (ie: violence,) the pacifists alienate and thereby sabotage any and all potentially successful attempts to create revolutionary reform. After explaining the need for versatility when confronting state violence, Churchill concludes the essay with a method for turning strictly non-violent pacifists into radical revolutionaries...
--
A Model for Revolutionary Transformation
pg. 96-103, Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America, by Ward Churchill
"What follows, then, is a sketch of a strategy by which radical therapists might begin to work through the pacifist problematic in both individual and group settings. It should be noted that the suggested method of approach is contingent upon the therapist's own freedom from contamination with pacifist predilections (it has been my experience that a number of supposed radical therapists are themselves in acute need of therapy in this area). It should also be noted that, in the process of elaboration, a number of terms from present psychological jargon (ie: "reality therapy") are simply appropriated for their use value rather than through any formal adherence to the precepts which led to their initial currency. Such instances should be self-explanatory.
Therapy may be perceived as progressing either through a series of related and overlapping stages or phases of indeterminate length.
Values Clarification. During this initial portion of the therapeutic process, participants will be led through discussion/consideration of the bases of need for revolutionary social transformation, both objective and subjective. Differentiations between objectively observed and subjectively felt/experienced needs will be examined in depth, with particular attention paid to contradictions - real or perceived - between the two. The outcome of this portion of the process is to assist each participant in arriving at a realistic determination of whether s/he truly holds values consistent with revolutionary aspirations, or whether s/he is not more psychically inclined toward some variant of reforming/modifying the status quo.
The role of the therapist in this setting is to be both extremely conversant with the objective factors, and to lead subjective responses of participants to an honest correlation in each discursive moment of process. Although this portion of therapy is quite hypothetical/theoretical in nature, it must be anticipated that a significant portion of participants who began defining themselves as pacifists will ultimately adopt a clarified set of personal values of a non-revolutionary type, that is, acknowledging that they personally wish to pursue a course of action leading to some outcome other than the total transformation of the state/liberation of the most objectively oppressed social sectors.
It would be impossible at this point to posit a procedure for attempting the alteration of non-revolutionary values. However, the purpose of radical (as opposed to bourgeois) therapy is not to induce accommodation to principles and values other than their own. In the sense that the term is used here, "values clarification" is merely an expedient to calling things by their right names and to strip away superficial/rhetorical layers of delusion.
Reality Therapy. Those - including self-defined pacifists - who in the initial phase of the process have coherently articulated their self-concept as being revolutionary will be led into a concrete integration with the physical reality of the objective bases for revolution, as well as application(s) of the revolutionary response to these conditions. The phase is quite multifaceted and contains a broad range of optional approaches.
In short, this second phase of the therapeutic process will include direct and extended exposure to the conditions of life among at least one (and preferably more) of the most objectively oppressed communities in North America, for example, inner-city black ghettos, Mexican and Puerto Rican barrios, American Indian reservations or urban enclaves, southern rural black communities, and so on. It is expected that participants will not merely "visit," but remain in these communities for extended periods, eating the food, living in comparable facilities, and getting by on the average annual income. Arguments that such an undertaking is unreasonable because it would be dangerous and participants would be unwanted in such communities are not credible; these are the most fundamental reasons for going - the reality of existing in perpetual physical jeopardy (and/or of being physically abused in extreme fashion) precisely because of being unwanted (especially on racial grounds), while living in the most squalid of conditions, is precisely what must be understood by self-proclaimed revolutionaries, pacifist or otherwise. Avoiding direct encounters with these circumstances as well as knowledge of them is to avoid revolutionary reality in favor of the comfort zone.
This experience should be followed by a similar sort of exposure to conditions among the oppressed within one or more of the many Third World nations undergoing revolutionary struggle. When at all possible, a part of this process should include linking up directly with one or more of the revolutionary groups operating in that country, a matter which is likely to take time and be dangerous (as will, say, living in an Indian village in Guatemala or Peru). But, again, this is precisely the point; the participant will obtain a clear knowledge of the realities of state repression and armed resistance that cannot be gained in any way other than through direct exposure.
Finally, either during or after the above processes, each participant should engage in some direct and consciously risk-inducing confrontation with state power. This can be done in a myriad of ways, either individually or in a group, but cannot include prior arrangements with police in order to minimize their involvement. Nor can it include obedience to police department demands for "order" once the action begins; participants must adopt a posture of absolute noncooperation with the state while remaining true to their own declared values (ie: for pacifists, refraining from violent acts themselves).
The role of the therapist - who should already have much grounding in revolutionary reality him/herself - during this phase of therapy is to facilitate the discussion of the process in both individual and group settings. The therapist must be conversant with the realities being experienced by participants to be able to assist them in establishing and apprehending a proper context in each instance.
Evaluation. For those who complete phase two (and a substantial degree of attrition must be anticipated in association with reality therapy, especially among those who began by espousing nonviolent "alternatives" to armed struggle), there must come a period of independent and guided reflection upon their observations and experiences "in the real world." This can be done on a purely individual basis, but generally speaking, a group setting is best for the guided portion of evaluation. A certain recapitulation/reformulation of the outcomes of the values clarification phase is in order, as is considerable philosophical/situational discussion and analysis coupled to readings; role-play has proven quite effective in many instances.
The point of this portion of the therapeutic process is to achieve a preliminary reconciliation of personal, subjective values with concrete realities. A tangible outcome is obtainable in each participant's formal articulation of precisely how he/she sees his/her values coinciding with the demonstrable physical requirements of revolutionary social action. Again, it should be anticipated that during evaluation a segment of participants will arrive at the autonomous decision that their aspirations/commitments are to something other than revolutionary social transformation.
The role of the therapist during this phase is to serve as a consultant to participant self-evaluation, recommend readings as appropriate to participant concerns/confusions, facilitate role-play and other group dynamics, and assist participants in keeping their reconciliations free of contractions in logic.
Demystification. It has been my experience that, by this point in the therapeutic process, there are few (if any) remaining participants seeking to extend the principles of pacifist absolutism. And among the remaining participants - especially among those who began with such absolutist notions - there often remains a profound lack of practical insight into the technologies and techniques common to both physical repression and physical resistance.
A typical psychological manifestation of such ignorance is the mystification of both the tools at issue and those individuals known to be skilled in their use. For example, a "fear of guns" is intrinsic to the pacifist left, as is sheer irrational terror at the very idea of directly confronting such mythologized characters as members of SWAT teams, Special Forces ("Green Berets"), Rangers, and members of right-wing vigilante organizations. The outcomes of such mystification tend to congeal into feelings of helplessness and inadequacy, rationalization, and avoidance. Sublimated, these feelings reemerge in the form of compensatory rhetoric, attempting to convert low self-confidence into a signification of transcendent virtue (ie: "make the world go away").
Hence, while few participants will at this juncture be prepared to honestly deny that armed struggle is and must be an integral aspect of the revolutionary interest that they profess to share, a number will still contend that they are "philosophically" unable to directly participate in it. Clarification is obtainable in this connection by bringing out the obvious: knowing how at some practical level, to engage in armed struggle and then choosing not to is a much different proposition than refraining from such engagements due to ignorance of the means and methods involved.
Here, "hands-on" training and experience is of the essence. The basic technologies at issue - rifles, handguns, shotguns, explosives, and the like, as well as the rudiments of their proper application and deployment - must be explored. This practical training sequence should be augmented and enhanced by selected readings, and continual individual and group discussion on the meaning(s) of this new range of skills acquisition.
It should be noted clearly that this phase of therapy is not designed or intended to create "commandos" or to form guerrilla units. Rather, it will serve only to acquaint each participant with the fact that s/he has the same general information/skills base as those who deter him/her through physical intimidation or repression and is at least potentially capable of the same degree of proficiency in these formerly esoteric areas as their most "elite" opponents. At this point, nonviolence can become a philosophical choice or tactical expedient rather than a necessity born of psychological default.
The role of the therapist during this phase is unlikely to be that of trainer (although it is possible, given that he/she should have already undergone such training). Rather, it is likely to be that of suggesting the appropriate trainers and literature, and serving as discussion/group facilitator for participants.
Reevaluation. In this final phase of therapy, remaining participants will be led into articulation of their overall perspective on the nature and process of revolutionary social transformation (ie: their understanding of liberatory praxis), including their individual perceptions of their own specific roles within this process. The role of the therapist is to draw each participant out into a full and non-contradictory elaboration, as well as to facilitate the emergence of potential for future, ongoing reevaluation and development of revolutionary consciousness.
--
The internal composition of each phase of this therapeutic approach in resolving the problem of hegemonic (pathological) pacifism is open to almost infinite variation on the part of the therapists and participants involved in each instance of application. Even the ordering of phases may be beneficially altered; for example, what has been termed "reality therapy" may have independently preceded and triggered the perceived need for values clarification on the part of some (or many) participants. Or, independently undertaken evaluations may lead some participants to enter values clarification and then proceed to reality therapy. The key for therapists is to retain a sense of flexibility of approach when applying the model, picking up participants at their own points of entry and adapting the model accordingly, rather than attempting a more-or-less rigid progression.
In sum, it is suggested that the appropriate application of the broad therapeutic model described in this section can have the effect of radically diminishing much of the delusion, the aroma of racism and the sense of privilege which mark the convert self-politics of contemporary America. At another level - if widely adopted - the model will be of assistance in allowing the construction of a true liberatory praxis, a real "strategy to win," for the first time within advanced industrial society. This potentiality, for those who would claim the mantle of being revolutionary, can only be seen as a positive step. [...]
Continuing conclusion on pg. 103
In concluding, I would at last like to state the essential premise of this essay clearly: the desire for a nonviolent and cooperative world is the healthiest of all psychological manifestations. This is the overarching principle of liberation and revolution. Undoubtedly, it seems the highest order of contradiction that, in order to achieve nonviolence, we must first break with it in overcoming its root causes. Therein, however, lies our only hope.