WE must go to our windows, throw them open and shout at the top of our voices, as a collective whole. “I’m mad as Hell! I’m not going to take this any more!” Just like the crazy newscaster played by Peter Finch did in the 1976 movie “NETWORK”! Ok if one person does this enough, it’s probably the rubber room for them just like it was for him but increased numbers and visibility might amount to increased chances of such a movement being taken seriously. If two people shout “I’m mad as Hell, I’m not going to take this anymore!” then they will make space for them in the rubber room as well. But if all we can do is double our numbers each time, here is and are the probable eventual outcomes: 4 shouters – rubber room; 8 shouters – rubber rooms; 16 shouters – rubber rooms; 32 shouters - rubber rooms; 64 shouters- rubber rooms; 128 shouters – rubber rooms; 256 shouters – stadium with Astroturf – Guys with Uzis; 512 shouters – more guys with Uzis and a “supervisory person to hear the shouts; 1024 shouters – an offer to pay anyone who will shut up and go home; 2048 shouters – a threat of some kind of concentration camp and more rubber rooms and stadiums and guys with Uzis. What, you say it couldn’t happen!? Read the Patriot Act, we have essentially given our government, our servants, the right to round any of us up that they deem a threat to national security and to hold us without trial or benefit of council. So I will warn you that under a rather broad umbrella of the definition of what constitutes terrorism, an action such as the above could be included as terrorist acts if we tried to organize a national effort, especially. At the same time, a single person can accomplish nothing. “WE” is the key! Do not forget, however, that the U.S. Policy at this time had been one of incredible arrogance and stupidity and that The President actually asked congress for permission to give policing powers to the US military so that in times of national emergency he might call upon them to enforce the law of the land. I am not certain what his intent was here but I am certain it was no coincidence that his poll numbers were slipping at the time. If he had gotten away with this, the need for actions of civil disobedience might have had to be well considered and performed in the shadow of true danger to the participants and here I speak of performing such actions in the U.S. where public reaction to slaughtering these persons might be somewhat negative. I know that if we consider such acts in all of the countries where they need to be participated in, we will definitely have bloodshed before it’s over! Again, I remind you of the words of the Dali Llama, who said that freedom, is sometimes worth sacrifice even sacrifice of one’s own life (but never the lives of noncombatants!). If you doubt the insanity of the policies of the U.S. Administration in power at this time, think about the fact that the U. S. Justice Department actually recommended that the CIA be exempted from international laws concerning torture of prisoners so that they might be able to torture information out of suspected terrorists. The fact that under control of homeland security the definition of “Terrorist” seems to have been broadened makes many persons in the Civil Liberties camp very nervous and with good cause! We may need to be willing to engage is some acts of “Civil Disobedience” in order to get our points across, yet there are those in the government who would argue that Civil Disobedience is never necessary in a Democracy because the constitution which each possesses defines and empowers the common citizenry with far-reaching power. However, one well known individual felt that sometimes Civil Disobedience” was the only way to go. I speak here of Henry David Thoreau. Henry David Thoreau, who felt strongly that civil disobedience in a democracy was the obligation of its citizens, argued that sometimes the constitution is the problem, not the solution. Moreover, legal channels can take too long, he argued, for he was born to live, not to lobby. His individualism gave him another answer: individuals are sovereign, especially in a democracy, and the government only holds its power by delegation from free individuals. Any individual may, then, elect to stand apart from the domain of law. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was also involved in acts of civil disobedience, asked us to look more closely at the legal channels of change. If they are open in theory, but closed or unfairly obstructed in practice, then the system is not democratic in the way needed to make civil disobedience unnecessary. Other activists have pointed out that if judicial review is one of the features of American democracy which is supposed to make civil disobedience unnecessary, and then it ironically subverts this goal; for to obtain standing to bring an unjust statute to court for review, often a plaintiff must be arrested for violating it. Finally, the Nuremberg principles require disobedience to national laws or orders which violate international law, an overriding duty even in (perhaps especially in) a democracy. Again WE is the key. Now, if my Grammatical construction makes it seem like I was educated in the Hill Country of Arkansas, I defend my use of We Is as due to the fact that WE is in this case a Collective WE and therefore used as though it were a singular pronoun”. WE have to look at what WE use as guidance, The Torah, the Bible, The Quorhan. WE must examine the words and pronouncements of their writers with a more critical eye and we must understand that the agendas which they had may not really relate to present day realities except in the most general of ways!! Of Course, the writers of the Bible and The Book of Mormon, for that matter, had an agenda! The writers of The Quorhan had an agenda. The writers of the Torah and Bhagavad Gita had the same agenda though they perhaps had it first amongst the books already mentioned, the three books (excluding the Bhagavad Gita) are at the center of conflict in both the Middle East and the Western World and fundamentally are the root cause of the WAR ON TERROR too as people who espouse one or another of these guides engage in conflicts which are basically disagreements over which of these are more correct in their presentation of GOD’S TRUE WORD! One might ask of course whether any of them are. After all what is the need for such WRITTEN guidance when GOD , no matter what his name is according to the belief systems under consideration, would have the ability to write the WORD upon the very soul and spirit of every human being! That word, inscribed across our DNA would be basically incorruptible and unalterable while any written presentation of so – called Universal Truth (God’s Word) would be subject to agenda driven human alteration! Perhaps the intent of these books was benign when they were written. Truly, they had a noble purpose a purpose of elevating the consciousness of humanity but if one tried to use a repair manual for the Model T Ford to guide them in repairing a Humm Vee, all they would achieve at best would be a confused, dysfunctional vehicle and at worst, they would build a death trap which might rush madly onward and take out a lot of other vehicles as it sped to its own destruction!! (If you read a repair instruction manual the equivalent of the Bhagavad Gita, it would explain internal combustion and mechanics in general but you would have specific instructions for neither type of vehicle. Each would have to be figured out on its own) People the world over are appalled at Man’s Inhumanity to His Fellows, yet they say that War and Conflict are inevitable pretty much as I presented to you in the introductory segments of this book. WHY? I’ll answer it this way. – Because we, in our hearts, feel that the examples that these books provide, dictate that such struggles are condoned by whomever we picture God to be! Aren’t the pages of all of these filled with stories of slaying and betrayal and people doing insane things to prove they have faith? (By the by, If you feel a NEED to prove that you have FAITH – You don’t have it!). People read REVELATIONS (The Revelations of St. John the Devine) and they feel we are all doomed anyway but that it’s OK to be doomed because Christ, Or the Messiah or some Celestial Virgins or Camel and Date Salesmen will come and make everything better, tossing out the “evil ones” and ushering in a Millennium of peace. In that Millennium of Peace, whatever people have written the Darn book will be set above everyone else and everyone they don’t like will be cast into some pit or another. Basically, the childish message is always the same. If you aren’t happy with the world, just believe the way that we tell you and your enemies will suffer while we and you ascend to greatness! What these guys who write this crap don’t or didn’t understand is that our picture of the world has been enhanced and expanded. We have left these trite little promises made when everyone but those of your tribe was an enemy, far behind, yet we can’t seem to let go of the BOOKS! What is up with that?
Posted on: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 02:22:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015