One of the most insidious elements of contemporary Empire logic is its incredible understanding and use of the symbolic universe and specifically the power of ‘representation reality’. It is precisely because of this new development that previous strategies used in liberation struggles are now counter-productive. I am speaking specifically about the place of what is sometimes termed “Identity Politics”. I think we must re-evaluate this strategy in light of the much more sophisticated way in which ‘place holder’ identities are used to prop up the status quo and continue patterns of exploitation, dispossession, marginalization and ultimately wealth accumulation.

Some of these reflections are based on my recent reading of the works of people who speak of a kind of racialized Capitalism. It is also based on some of my recent discussions with various interlocutors. Here is what I am struggling with. How are communities that have been traditionally marginalized by the various patterns of domination respond to these continued injuries in our present moment? So we can speak of patterns of economic exploitation of Capitalism, patterns of gender violence (and exclusion) caused by Patriarchy and Heteronormativity, patterns of Racialized violence and marginalization created and perpetuated by White Supremacist’s ideology, patterns of ecological violence wrought by mindless consumption patterns and narrow visions of advancement as only defined by the narrow vision of consumerism, and ‘progress’. These are but a few.

One of the issues is how the Powerful have, in contermporay settings harnessed the place of what I am terming ‘place holder’ symbols to obfuscate the continued exploitation patterns. One of the foundational shifts in recent times is that the powerful, exploiters and those causing injuries have found out ways to create alternative ‘narratives’ and even symbolic expressions which give the illusion of actual change while in fact merely maintaining the status quo. Keenaga-Yamahtta Taylor speaks of the strategy of placing ‘Black faces in high places’. The most obvious and extreme example in recent times was to have an African-American become the highest elected public official in the United States of America. This for many represented the ushering in of not only a “post-racial” society but a kind of utopian vision realized. Many (not all) people in the United States had truly believed that the election of Barrack Obama as president of the United States would allow us to finally turn the corner on many of the most malignant problems found in the United States. It also offered for some in the world a beacon of hope for the possibility of change. If the United States of America, one of the most blatantly white supremacist country whose long legacy of slavery, and neglect/abuse for virtually all communities of color could free itself from the shackles of bitter hatred it seemed to portend that any thing was possible. Or so it seemed. While I firmly believe that the election of Obama to the presidency allowed for an unprecedented opportunities for all liberation struggles, I think we have to also see it as a ‘strategy’ by the powerful to forestall their demise.

I wish to posit another possibility. This is not to say that there was not an actual ‘shift’ in the horizon of possibility that did in fact open to the body politic in the United States after Obama was elected president. I do believe that the ‘historical force’ of his victory was much more than just the election of one African-American man into the office. Here we do see the incredible power of symbols and representation. What I wish to suggest is that I believe that the ruling elites had already seen the proverbial ‘writing on the wall’ that was begun by the authentic freedom movements of the 60s and 70s and had to create a strategy to displace the genuine anger, analysis and movement of the people.

During this fruitful period of revolutionary fervor there were some powerful alliances that were being shaped. There is large amounts of evidence that indicate that various oppressed, exploited and marginalized communities were joining forces and identify common enemies, and patterns. One of the books that explores one such example is found in the work of Lauren Araiza entitled “To March for Other: The Black Freedom Struggle and the United Farm Workers” . It is also important to do a much more sophisticated reading of the roots of the Gay Liberation struggle. I have found many other depictions of this ‘intersectional’ understanding of struggle from this historical period. We had multiracial groups do incredible work in analyzing the class dimension of many struggles. One need only think of the Blank Panthers using Maoist analysis to understand their predicament. It might be helpful to remember the wonderful insight of Brother Malcolm X who said; ” You can’t have capitalism without racism! It’s impossible too for a white person today to believe in capitalism and not believe in racism..” Or to remember that Caesar Chavez was in fact first and foremost a Labor Leader!

The power elites, or owning class began to figure out the true danger this degree of intersectional analysis and activism which portended disaster for the powerful. They went into their ancient ‘tool box’ of strategies for oppression and pulled an ‘old standard’. It was the ‘divide and conquer’ but with a brand new twist. Part of what was done was allowing certain ‘members’ of the previously marginalized communities to become part of the Empire apparatus. Simply put they were able to ‘co-opt’ some of the more gifted and charismatic leaders within each community. If they were certainly not the most important figures within the communities of origin the powerful were able to ‘create’ the illusion of importance and allow these figures to speak with an authority disproportionate to the communities they represented.

There are many examples but I will use only a few. One that comes to mind most immediately is the relative recent interaction between Whoopi Goldberg and Bernie Sanders in a recent interview on the View. It was very clear that there was already an agenda in the interview. The agenda was motivated by the ‘damage’ that a Sanders presidency would do to various elements/communities/individuals within the power elites wealth and power. It is also not by ‘accident’ that the person chosen to conduct this bizarre ‘ambush’ interview was an African-American female. The corporation who is in ultimate control of the content in this show knew precisely well why the use of someone like Goldberg would ensure a built in ‘defense’ against any critique. Particularly given that Bernie is ‘visually’ the representation of virtually all elements of the ruling class. Bernie being an old, white, wealthy man who has been involved in government for decades. Yet, when one takes a different hermeneutical lens to the situation you begin to see that the ‘representative’ of the marginalized community is here representing the traditional power arrangements.

The second even more glaring is the use of Sarah Palin as a ‘representative’ of working women and specifically Soccer Mom’s and Momma Bear personas In these two examples we see the use of members of the truly marginalized community (Women, African-Americans etc.) being used to re-introduce some very standard rationalizations for continuing to continue the old power arrangements.

The final is in a sense the most tragic. We are now entering our 18th year of our ‘war’ with Iraq that was based on the lies of the WMDs that were part of Saddam Hussein’s military threat. Besides Dick Cheney, the two ‘public faces’ of this war were Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. It is not by accident that one of the most recent imperialist venture of the United States was ‘sold’ to the United States and the world by an African-American man. It is also interesting how the moment that Powell began to ask genuine questions and express authentic concern of the situation he became persona non grata in virtually all public discourse. This is also true, but in a much lesser degree, for Rice.

Here I find myself asking the famous question articulated by Vladimir Lenin in his magisterial work. “What is to Be Done?” I wish I could give some simple solution but we know that the historical reality in which we find ourselves (maybe this is always true?!) offers no ‘easy answers’. Here I will only give two or three cursory observations that might be developed to become a strategy.

Step One: I think we have to be honest that some of the ‘language’ and even the strategies that were once so important in previous periods of struggle may no longer serve to move any real humanistic, progressive agenda forward. I mean here particularly the place of ‘recognition’ as a good measure of not only where we are but also where we want to be? The Empire has figured out that it can in many cases (obviously not all!) just create the ‘illusion’ of progress or liberation by having individuals or ‘acceptance’ (or even more recently tolerance/celebration language) as a way to show they are on ‘our side’. This comes in many forms but frequently takes the shape of elevating certain individual persons or narratives as ‘evidence’ of how this systems is working and basically healthy. Instead of seeing it as merely a cynical ploy to cover-up the moribund quality of said system. I found this point recently salient in an interaction I had with a student. I had with a student of mine who is very much a product of his social location and also a defender of the status quo. He actually asked me (I have been asked this many times before) how I could be mad at a system that has worked so well for me? I grew up incredibly impoverished in El Paso, Texas. The son of a Bracero couple and here I am a Doctorate level educator. What more evidence do I need that indeed the meritocracy that is so present in our system works. The ‘cream’ really does rise to the top!! I had to remind the student that as a person of Faith, the measure of success in life is not measured by anything of ‘this world’ but rather by the capacity for the Kingdom (Reign) of God to be reflected “on earth as it is in heaven”. Basically we have to move away from the “Super” Individual model of success and recalibrate our criteria for what constitutes true and substantive victory.

Step Two: I think we in communities that have been horribly hurt by various other communities must find ways to not only mend the past (Not erase it) but also move past (through) it. This is best done by developing strong bonds of solidarity. I think this is especially done through a materialist approach to our communal struggles. What if the Brown Berets as part of their foundational documents always explicitly put in something about seeking justice for low wage workers? What if all women organizations designated a certain amount of their budget to the care of the differently abled community? What if every community that is struggling, exploited, marginalized made it a point to make part of their communal well being be measured by the well being of members not in their ‘tribe’?! I mean that this would be made manifest in very concrete elements.

Step Three: I think that we must move from language (and experience) of acceptance, tolerance and even celebration to delight. In the Scripture the language of God delighting in God’s Creation. If we are to try to walk the walk we must actually begin to delight in all of our sisters and brothers. This includes all creation!! To the degree that we speak in the other terms (acceptance, tolerance etc.) we are bound to a kind of individualistic paradigm that posits a kind of uniqueness to each of us that can at time be detrimental. The reality is that we are all creatures of something much larger, mysterious and grander than we will ever be able to fully comprehend! That which made us (I hesitate to give any word here) seems to delight in us! Let us do the same with/for each other. This also must include our defending those who seek to harm creation and this beautiful covenant reality with a fierceness that can only come from understanding our common kinship. Think of how we defend those who seek to harm our ‘self-identified’ tribes, or communities. What if we extended this loyalty to all creation, and frankly all reality. How might this shape our politics, economics, cultural practices, sexuality, etc.

In the end my work has always been about trying to learn how best to live the Love Commandment as expressed by my Master; Jesus. I think we are at an interesting juncture in which not only a new language of love must be co-created, but a new praxis of love.

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
― Frederick Douglass, Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings

I was once complimented by a former colleague of mine for ‘turning a phrase’ in a way that brought clarity to a situation. We were talking about the place of wealthy donors (Gates Foundation etc.) in creating a just society. Because we are both from within the Catholic Moral tradition we spoke in terms of what is the place of charity for building the Reign of God. In simplest terms we were rehashing the age old debate of the relationship of Charity and Justice. I said that in recent years I have become much more suspicious of the wealthy class desire to get into the philanthropic arena. I didn’t believe that their desire was grounded in anything that can be a called an authentic desire for justice. I said, ‘you can’t charity your way into justice’. I still very much believe this to be the case. To the degree that Justice is understood as ‘right relationship’ and Charity is necessary precisely as a response to an unhealthy relationship. We can speak of these two modes of existence as actually have an uneasy ‘alliance’ at best, and diametrically opposed goals at worse. In other words to the degree that one becomes ‘satisfied’ in ‘giving charity’ (and looks forward to it) one is attached to maintaining the conditions necessary which gave rise to such a need.

I have recently been reading the wonderful book by Anand Giriharadas entitled; Changing the World: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. It speaks precisely to this issue. In many ways it has verified much of what I had intuited from my work/studies. His argument is basically that the ‘new’ found desire on the part of the elites (wealthy, powerful etc.) is ultimately a subtle (and not so subtle!) desire to maintain control of the current social order. It is paradoxically the manner by which to ‘change’ the world without sacrifice or foundational/structural movements. As Brother Douglas articulates above they want ‘crops without plowing up the ground”, “rain without thunder”, “ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.”

I was impressed by so much of what Giriharadas said, but I wish to focus on just a couple of points. In the text he speaks of the difference between Critic and Thought Leaders. The sharp distinctions is found in how thought leaders are allowed to do a critique of ‘the system’ (even to the very creators of said system!!) without asking them to cop to their place in creating the problems found within said system. He speaks of a wonderful way in which the critic becomes a thought leader by slowly ‘compromising’ certain elements of their analysis. He terms this the thought-leader three step. I would like to briefly introduce the three steps and then end with elaborating on how my research and most importantly my teaching has been impacted by the desire within me to stay in the place of critic and not surrender to forces that lead to becoming a thought leader.

The thought-leader three step is composed of three ‘shifts’ that occur on the part of analyzing, and articulating an unjust situation, and more importantly proposing solutions for the situations. Remember that the fundamental project is to create ‘solutions’ that allow those in power to not only continue to maintain power but to feel as though they are actually doing ‘something’ towards eradicating the pain and suffering found in the given situation (poverty, racism, sexism etc.). This has to be done in a way that will in substance not impact the current arrangement of power, resources, material life of any community.

The first step is to make certain that one focus on the victims of injustice rather than the perpetrators. I remember hearing about an article that was entitled something like ‘Sin without Sinners”. If you think about the horrible tragedies in the world you will notice that frequently the signifiers that express these realities are expressed in ‘passive’ or at best ‘neutral’ terms so that they seem to occur out of ‘nowhere’? So we speak of The Poor not The Impoverished. The term impoverished is defined as “reduced to poverty” or ‘deprived of strength, vitality, creativeness etc.” It is not just that people are poor. Which is profoundly sad, but any analysis that doesn’t speak to how people are made poor by exploitive systems allows people who create these conditions to talk about them without being held accountable for their existence. A Critic will be much more forthright in ‘connecting the dots’ that show a causal (even if it is a very complex web of causation) link between wealth accumulation of the few and the impoverishment of the many. This can also be seen in the shift recently from speaking of this abstract thing called Racism (which honestly, no body seems to like or be!!) to White Supremacist Ideology. Which not only has some specific implications for who ‘benefits’ from Racism but also how it functions within larger systems of exploitation and oppression.

The second step is essentially to do a complete reversal on the foundational insight made (among other places) by the Feminist Movement which help popularize the phrase “The personal is political“. In this way it sought to locate the origins of some of our pressing personal problems within the arena of the larger social/political/economic/cultural schema of our existence. The second step which transforms a Critic into a Thought Leader is the step made when one reverses the order and seeks to caste the issue as “The political is personal“. I wish to give an example here from my own life. Part of my experience growing up in the United States is to experience myself as a very insecure, low self-esteem, somewhat ‘not good enough’ person. I have done some major healing in this area. I have been blessed to use a multitude of healing modalities (therapy, 12 step work, body work, self-help books, spiritual practices etc.). Two areas that I had a strong negative self image (and lack of self-acceptance) was in feeling embarrassed about my parent’s accent, and also my physical appearance (particularly hair and size of my nose). I always figured I was just a guy who had ‘self-esteem’ issues. Which was no doubt true. I also don’t wish to discount the importance of personal/psychological/ inner work. But at one point when I was working with children at a day care I noticed that the vast majority of children who were my Chicano/Latinx Sister’s and Brother’s had similar psychological issues!! I got to thinking….”Wait a minute, we can’t all be personally neurotic in the same way!! How can we all have the same personal psychological wound!!” I also noticed that certain ‘accents’ were not treated with a kind of ‘disdain’. Hugh Grant has a charming accent. Diego Luna has an accent that seems to not be as ‘charming’ certainly not as versatile in the avenues that his characters can inhabit. I remember feeling like my nose was ‘too big’. When I teach this concept now I remind my students that ‘large and small’ is always a contextual assessment. So something is large or small relative to ‘something (or someone) else. Now when I was looking at myself (by myself!!) in the bathroom mirror and assessing my nose as ‘too big’ who/what else was there/their with me?!! Years later I began to realize the effects of White Supremacist’s Ideology as one of the ongoing ‘companions’ of my journey. That this enemy was located first and foremost outside of myself. It was not just ‘little Rene’ that felt bad because he was ‘neurotic’ but that little Rene was very specifically wounded by forces outside of himself that had a vested interest in wounding him and continuing to wound him in a very particular way. These forces or enemies are clearly of a political/economic/social/cultural nature. Remember I am in no way discounting the place of personal/psychological healing but to paraphrase a phrase I have heard attributed to Mao Zedong that in order to win revolutions you must ‘identify the enemy accurately’. I now realize this must include naming names and calling systems/people out who benefit from very specific patterns that do in fact cause injuries that are made manifest within the ‘personal’ life of people. This is precisely what the Thought Leader can never do if he/she wishes to ‘hang out’ with the owning class.

The final step is to always propose solutions for any of the structural injustices which must are addressed in ways that are immediately actionable. This is obviously a very important step. However, the danger is that the solutions must fit into ‘prepackaged’ solution slots. What Giridharadas’ calls plans that are ‘constructively actionable.’ In one sense this manifests in creating a ‘strategic plan’ that can be executed within the current social arrangements or in other words, to change the world without actually altering in any foundational or fundamental way the way the world is currently arranged. It is simply changing without change. I am again, reminded of the wonderful quote found at the beginning of this entry.

There are many things wrong with this final step which is offered by the Thought Leaders and sanctioned by those in power. The first is that it is speaks to the existence of a virulent and unhealthy form of anti-utopianism. It is unhealthy precisely because it surrenders to the atrophied and distorted social imagination which is offered within any system. This is especially pernicious in our current situation because one of the ways that the project of Neoliberalism continues to hold sway in our world despite all material evidence against it is because of the ‘naturally fallacy’ which holds sway among so many people. Essentially the ‘natural fallacy’ can best be summarized by the the line made famous by Margaret Thatcher that “There is no Alternative.” I believe it is Slovoj Zizek who said that the tragedy of our current climate crisis is that so much of humanity can envision the end of human life on the planet more easily than the end of Capitalism. This surrendering our ability to imagine and envision outside of the reality we currently inhabit asserts that if we cannot immediately create the solutions to our problems from where we stand than this problem can never be solved. This lack of social imagination is caused by our reliance on a certain type of cognitive methodology. In the dominant system we have long ago destroyed or effectively rendered mute our artists, mystics, visionaries etc. This is not an accident. By effectively erasing all members of the community that connect us to the ‘transcendent’ element of reality and the human experience we automatically render certain options unavailable by default. It is not that I am against a solid analysis (see my entry on anti-intellectualism) but rather that we must have available to us the very important human faculty of imagination. The second problem with this way of understanding solutions is that it renders all critique impossible because it asks those making the critique to come up with the ‘alternative’ without giving proper space (both temporal and geographical) for solutions to arise as part of revolutionary praxis and struggle. The nature of dialectic movements and social change is that there is always going to be an ‘unknown’ or even an ‘improvised’ element. So to demand an ‘answer’ to the questions posed by a critique as a criteria for taking seriously the critique is to render all criticism unacceptable. When the U.S. revolution was beginning the owning class new very little about what the new ‘nation’ would look like as a fully realized entity. Much of the clarity of their vision was expressed in what they were ‘against’ (“No taxation without representation”). It took some time to deal with the formulations of what this ‘Republic’ would finally look like. Some might even say that the ‘final form’ has not yet been fully realized? All new ‘creations’ will go through a period of chaos or confusion prior to any type of ‘stability’ or ‘resolution’. This is the nature of dialectical development.

I want to close this entry by speaking about how I have tried to maintain the ‘critic’ perspective in my pedagogical methods. The most obvious thing that has changed is that I have tried to introduce much more the ‘victimizers” that create the victims. This includes showing the ways in which the ‘system’ is very much a product of human agency. There really are perpetrators that actually damage and wound people. I have moved away from the ‘we are all part of the problem’ paradigm. At some very abstract level this is of course true. I have found, however, that this phrasing (and the thinking which it creates) functions in a very ideological manner. I use the term ideological here in the way that is used frequently within the Marxist traditions. It is actually used to obscure and obfuscate reality rather than reveal it. I recently saw an interesting little internet meme (I think that is the term?) which illustrate more clearly how I view our predicament. While far from an exact quote it basically says ‘We are not in the same boat. We are in the same storm and some of us are in luxury yachts and some are in life rafts” This to me more accurately reflects the reality. Furthermore I think we have to be honest about who in fact is in charge of the ‘weather patterns’ that created these ‘storms’. For me one way to understand this shift is by grounding myself much more in the Materialist philosophical traditions (of which Marxism is the most well known).

In my classes (particularly those dealing with morality, ethics and social justice) I used to show a lot of the images, perspectives etc. of the victims. What I have been doing much more lately is showing how the perpetrators live, exist. There is something mind-blowing about showing how a billionaire can buy an entire stretch of beach front property (with cash!!) while there are houseless people (many who actually have jobs!!) living in close proximity. This in fact is precisely why the life of the wealthy, owning class is a sin, abomination, and a betrayal of all of the values that the majority of people (including of course, the wealthy) espouse. This change of focus has left me open to many critiques. In another entry I will address some of these. For now it is sufficient enough for me to say that I will continue to seek to move in the direction of a Critic and not a Thought Leader. I am aware that this type of authentic critique poses a much more existential threat to the material conditions of the wealthy, owning class and those that serve them.

I will end with a line I first heard said by Richard Rohr. He said, “The truth will set you free, but first, it will make you damn uncomfortable”….here is to more authentic discomfort which comes at the service of our search for truth, mercy and ultimately love.

Here is what I struggle with.

I think in the United States we have two ‘streams’ or ideologies that feed off of each other and they work together to keep us in chains. The first stream (or ethos) is that there is a deep suspicion of the ‘intellectual’ life among many ‘regular folks’. I think this is somewhat well founded by the fact that there is frequently a deep ‘disconnect’ between the ‘intellectual class’ and the proletariat, particularly the ‘blue collar’ type. I sometimes see this in how certain people speak of how my ‘education’ has somehow taken me away from ‘living’ or not really ‘living’ this thing called the ‘real life’. Again, I am very aware of how education can also ‘form’ (deform) our connection with various ‘struggles’. I am especially aware of how education has been used by the Neoliberal project to create a group of people that ultimately do the bidding of the owning class to screw over the rest of the world! That includes the myth of a ‘well informed’ community based on some sort of ‘meritocracy’ which included going to the ‘right schools’ etc. However, sometimes the solution becomes articulated in an ‘unintentional’ anti-intellectualism that is the mirror image of the arrogance and elitism of the intellectual class.

What ends up happening is that any analysis or intellectual “labor” is treated with contempt or minimally, as suspicious. The classic ‘what do you think you’re better than us’ thinking. I have taught for many years and one of my most striking memories is of an event that illustrated my response to an event in my class. When I look at it now, I sometimes view it as my responding from a place of wanting to be ‘radical egalitarian’ about all knowledge. I think this is good but I realized that I didn’t intervene in a way that could have made a much more important point and even more importantly brought a degree of ‘consciousness’ to the situation.

I was teaching a class on Social Justice. As part of the curriculum each student was to do a research project and come to a moral position on a moral issue of their choice. They were to present their findings and their conclusion to the entire class in an oral report. A young woman gave a report on the issue of Capital Punishment. What was most striking about her report was that she spoke about how she began by being ‘for Capital Punishment’ prior to beginning the research paper. At the end she spoke of how she had moved to being against Capital Punishment. A young man who spoke up in class said, that he still believed in Capital Punishment no matter what she said. I, trying to create a sense of reconciliation, spoke of both parties having equally validity in their perspectives. But the reality is that they were not equally ‘valid’! She had actually done ‘intellectual work’ he had not! She had actually thought about this issue and analyzed the various issues and perspectives. I am not talking here about the conclusion. I am talking about the actual quality of the opinion. She had explored various aspects of this issue. He had not. This included interrogating some of the common ‘myths’ that are part of the defense for Capital Punishment (deterrence, ‘eye for an eye’, cost effectiveness for the community etc.). The reality is that a more honest answer that I could have given would have been something like: “Sorry, she has a better informed opinion. She knows more about this issue than you do. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But don’t mistake the ‘quality’ of your opinion as equal to her. She is, on this issue, more informed. Now we can have an honest debate about it but to somehow to ‘pretend’ that your opinion is equally as reflective of reality and worthy of equal consideration is really not a good idea’. “

I wish to say, that this is about a specific issue. I remind my students that I have a Ph.D. in theological ethics, part of what this means is that in one sense my ‘understanding’ of this topic is very strong. No, not perfect, but very strong. If you are seeking an ‘opinion’ on how to transport a large amount of chemicals from one state to another, I am not your man! :o( If you want to know about how to paint your house, I am certainly not ‘an expert’. Have I painted some homes in my life, yes. Would I match my ‘knowledge base’ with someone who has been doing this for their entire professional life. Of course not! Knowledge matters! It is super important to actually have people that are good at social analysis, and understanding the ‘inner working’ of systems. This requires a deep commitment to the intellectual life. I think we do a tremendous disservice to many people when we don’t honor the ‘experts’. Now again, I am not naïve, I don’t believe that knowledge automatically makes you a ‘good person’ or even a ‘virtuous person. But there has to be a place for life that does not rely solely on just having a lot of ‘experience’ (whatever that actually means!?).

I would like to give one more example of where this desire to place ‘experience’ over analysis is very detrimental. I sometimes remind my student’s that WWI was called by some ‘The War to End All Wars”. We as a species have a helluva lot of ‘experience’ at war, but we sure as hell haven’t done much to ‘analyze’ properly the real causes of war, prevention of war, the manner by which we can seek actual alternatives to war. I would suggest that one of the reasons is because anyone that seeks to move outside of certain epistemological categories gets accused of ‘not knowing what the fuck they are talking about’. Somehow ‘experiencing’ war gives you some intimate knowledge that allows you to see the larger (and deeper) picture to the issue of war. So ‘peace loving hippie’ or ‘pacifist’ types don’t fully ‘understand’ what is involved in war.

I remember years ago a very popular bumper sticker was one that simply said HONOR LABOR. My point is not to deny the absolute importance of some degree of experience or exposure to the real life conditions that one is talking about in any situation. What I wish to suggest is that we can not be ‘simplistic’ or parochial in our placing this distorted concept of ‘experience as the be all and end all of true revolutionary work. It can not replace analysis and actual intellectual labor. I do believe that ‘book learning’ has a place in revolutionary work. I think it is dangerous to diminish its value precisely because it plays right into the hands of the ruling elite and their agenda of creating an atmosphere of ‘anti-intellectualism’. Intellectual labor really is a kind of labor. All I am saying is HONOR LABOR.

I was responding to some questions raised by a dear Brother (and fantastic Human Being!) about the recent censoring of Donald Trump. Let me say, that these are damn scary times. Also, I have no doubt that the ideology that guides Trump and his followers are a very real threat to our democracy and the planet! I am also very aware that theirs are not the only things threatening our existence at this moment. So below are some reflections. For me what is most troubling is the all to common manner in which the United States seeks to “erase” uncomfortable aspects of our history. Pay close attention to the words of Moonves near the end of my reflection. Trump didn’t “fall from the sky”. He, and his racist, fear mongering, demagoguery, sexist, etc. existence was aided and abetted by other folks (and ideologies) that gave birth to his particular embodiment of evil.

I really struggle with the issue of censorship in a democratic society. The history of virtually all desires to “control” speech, information etc. ends up being used against leftist, progressive movements. As someone who has had dealings with the State intelligence apparatus. I have 0% confidence that these measures in the end are truly going to be used for the betterment of the world or the common good! Trump is an embodiment of a failed System. He is a symptom of the problem. Not the cause of it. Some years ago I worked with a guy who had an ear infection that was brutal. It made him feel constantly dizzy, and because of dizziness he felt nauseous (horrible upset stomach). For a long time the doctors gave him medicine for his stomach “problems”. The ear infection eventually worked its way into his brain! The doctors figured it out in time, but just barely!? I don’t want to just treat the “stomach problems”. Note, not either/or….I am a good Catholic. So always believe in both/and. Obviously you deal with upset stomach, but get to the root of the problem! . My experience has also demonstrated that decisions arrived at while under duress are rarely very good in the long run. Think Patriot Act, Homeland Security etc. after 9/11.

I forgot who said this but the problem caused by democracy (rule of the Demos. .the People) can only be cured by more democracy. Again, I get the concerns. It’s absolutely terrifying what is happening. I am just very damn suspicious, and skeptical that a large multinational corporation run by the wealthy for Profit have all of a sudden become “woke” to the horrors of racism, xenophobia, militarism etc. I don’t know if you remember this incredible quote by Les Moonves the CBS executive when asked about the then Presidential campaign of Donald Trump “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS…Man who would expected the ride we’re all having now?…The money’s rolling in and this is fun… I’ve never seen anything like this before, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry, it’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going,” I will repeat, I completely understand the dangerous world we are living in, but I have no damn faith that the wealthy have “all of a sudden” found a conscience.

I begin with deep, visceral hatred, and blinding rage, and anger. I am aware that we always can only begin where we are….of this there can be no negotiation. We are indeed living through a remarkable time. I feel overwhelmed and don’t know where to begin or even where/what to address first. This particular entry begins with an inspiration given by Brother Michael Moore in an interview on the online show The Hill. He was speaking about the most recent Documentary he had ‘produced’ entitled Planet of the Humans. It has caused some controversy, I have watched the documentary and have read some critiques of it. I struggle with where I stand. As I was pondering these issues, I realized that there were many ‘layers’ to what was going on. I hope to untangle not only my response but also the various layers to this issue (or these issues, since there are obviously more than just one!) I am aware also that this topic may be too large to address in this format?

I was struck by many comments made in the interview but I have to quote some at length (if only for the integrity of this entry ). Michael Moore says about the current Pandemic “Growth is really the death of us…We are not going to save the plane or ourselves by allowing Wall Street , Hedge Funds, Corporate America to be anywhere near us as we try to fix this. We are in desperate shape… Our Mother Nature is sending us a huge, huge warning. Mother Nature has sent us to our time out rooms right now…When we don’t accomplish what we need to accomplish in our lives, aren’t we suppose to be somewhat self-reflective, somewhat self-critical and say ‘okay, this doesn’t seem to be working’…There’s no working with the devil here and we the people hold the power. We need to exercise that power.”

I tried looking for a quote (thank God this is not an academic setting! LOL) but I remember Michael Moore stating how Covid-19 has done more for the Planet in terms of its healing (albeit it may be only temporary?) than what the Environmental Movement work has failed to do in the previous 50 yars. We are aware that to some degree this is true. We are seeing reports of how the Planet is going through a rather remarkable ‘healing process’ as we humans are just ‘doing less’. It is patently obvious that as we speak of how our ‘economy’ is being destroyed our Mother is being healed! I think that we have to take away some very powerful, unsettling, and damn disturbing lessons from this moment. I want to spend the remainder of the piece exploring some of these lessons.

1. We really can no longer speak in any legitimate way about how we are ‘all one’ without sincerely and forthrightly speaking of the evil forces and people that benefit tremendously from both dividing us and MORE IMPORTANTLY ‘uniting us’ in what is essentially a full of crap, charade of superficial ‘unity’ that they (we will identify more who they are later on!) use to distract us as they do their evil and destroy life in all its authentic forms. Let me be very clear! There is an US and a THEM. I had heard that one of the basic discrepancies between traditional Catholic Social Teachings and Liberation Theology was that Catholic Social Teaching begins with this sense of our existence being found by inhabiting an organic ‘whole’ (think Body of Christ language etc.) while Liberation Theology begins with a much more Marxist influenced outlook which posits the beginning of any journey as understood within the context of a ‘Class Struggle’. Not unity but division, and more specifically conflict.
2. We have to completely abandon working with ‘incremental’ change and ‘reformist’ movements. I think this is most painful because while not all people in this ‘camp’ are just apologist for a vile and moribund system (there are many like that) there are also many who are truly interested in genuine movement towards a more life-affirming reality. Part of what this means is that the time line that we have set for ourselves as Homo Sapiens to ‘figure this out’ was never based on reality. It is as though the bizarre assumption made by the Modern, Cartesian Philosophical World View which allowed us to see ourselves as a part from the life system was a colossal illusion/delusion. The Planet is not really interested in our ‘time line’ at all! In fact it doesn’t give a damn about us. All our ‘self-importance’ was in fact just a stupid ass, self-destructive masturbatory exercise in narcissistic delusion! In many ways, part of what Donald Trump represents is merely an embodiment of this very perspective writ large!
3. We must be willing to move into previously uncharted territories. This will mean that the superficial paradigm embodied by such activities as “We are the World”, or the more recent “One World: Together at Home” concert has to be completely abandoned and we must begin to truly inhabit a world of aching, terrifying, violence (not the violence we usually think of) and maybe, eventually (no guarantees…sorry) astounding solidarity, and resurrection. The reality is that to become ONE we must actually enact this reality, it is not something that can be ‘dreamed into existence’. The reason that the early Christians were the Body of Christ (Mystical…YES and NO?!) was because they really were ONE BODY:

The Fellowship of the Believers

⁴² They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. ⁴³ Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. ⁴⁴ All the believers were together and had everything in common. ⁴⁵ They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. ⁴⁶ Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, ⁴⁷ praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts of the Apostles)

It is obvious that the reason that they could speak so poignantly and poetically of their being One Body is because in fact they LIVED THEIR DAILY EXISTENCE to a great degree trying to do just that. I am constantly amazed at how the powerful seem to tell us when we are ‘one’ or when we are a ‘community’. After 9/11 I remember hearing that America had been attacked. I was, at the time, reading Jonathan Kozol’s work. I was reading how we fund our educational system. Let me just say that we do not fund it at all as though we are ALL AMERICANS! I had frequently heard why should ‘MY TAX DOLLARS GO TO…’ but somehow I in California was suppose to care for people in New York or else I wasn’t being a ‘Good American’? This is to say, that the powerful elites (and all their representatives!!) don’t get to tell us when we are ‘all one’ and when you are on your own.

4. We have to be willing to seperate certain people from the community for the betterment of the Body. I am deeply aware that this must be done with a humble heart, and constant prayerful practice. It can not be done with any sense of malice or revenge but I want to give an example that seems to work for me. It may not for you? In the Catholic Tradition we have a long history of Sin impacting elements of our lives. This includes but is not limited to the understanding of ‘disorder desires’. I am deeply aware of how this language has been hijacked to speak about sexual ‘sin’ however I think that is a poor application. Not accurate (or helpful) in many situations.

I want to speak of a specific situation and draw parallels to the wealthy in the world. I am very aware that this is a very volatile subject so please be aware that I approach this with hesitation and trepidation. We are aware that there were a remarkable number of priests who were involved in molesting young boys. It was such a profound tragedy and evil that still haunts us to this day. However, the evil was in the cover up that ensued. No one in their right mind (or heart) would think that any version of a ‘solution’ to this problem would entail allowing the ‘distorted’ desires of the pathological priest’s to continue. No matter how much they pleaded with us, it would just not be part of any sane discussion. I also would caution here on the place of punishing them in a way that doesn’t seek to sincerely and forthrightly rehabilitate these unhealthy Brothers in our community. The question is that we as a community as a Single Body would tell these people (I mean here specifically, the priests who were involved in the molestation) “We can not accept your desires and work towards having them fulfilled. The cost for the well-being of the larger community and the common good is too great. We can not under any circumstance allow this to continue. We also firmly believe that this as a malady that is very deeply rooted and needs serious treatment and help. We will seek help for you, and yet we will not ‘negotiate’ with your desire. IT IS NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION.”

I am aware that this is a very sensitive subject loaded with many subtle issues, and even sub-issues but I want to draw a correlation between this and how the planet is currently organized. Even more specifically how we ‘negotiate’ with our owning/wealthy class. Jeff Bezos is “worth” (as of May 5th, 2020) 138.5 Billion Dollars. He is on his way to becoming the first Trillionaire. On this same planet among the same species as that of Jeff Bezos we have a phenomena of “Every hour of every day, 300 children die because of malnutrition. It’s an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths – 2.6 million every year.” (World Health Organization). Does anyone in their right mind think that anything that Jeff Bezos wants (desires) should be listened too? This is the sad part, there are people that are going to get more angry at my bringing these two issues together than at the larger point I am trying to make! Yes, we should be extremely morally repulsed, and outraged at the horror show that has been part of the long history (and legacy) of the Church but somehow the idea that a goddamn human being should somehow possess 138.5 Billion dollars while millions of innocent children die is sacrosanct! To speak of telling him, you can’t live like this anymore. Sorry, I get it, I know what you want….NO!! IT IS NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION. I am deeply aware that part of why this type of thinking has so gripped much of the world and especially the Western World is that we have shifted our sense of ‘sin’ from an individuals ‘moral failing’ and away from understanding properly the massive, and yet equally subtle and insidious forces where the true human depravity lay. The other factor is not letting an analysis enter the debate the challenges how anyone can amass such wealth. We always begin this discussion with “Why should he have to give up HIS WEALTH” never coming to fully understand much less challenge how that level of wealth is accumulated. How is society organized? Who is in charge? How is Power understood? What is the ‘Currency’ used in this ecological, economic system that we inhabit. I want to elaborate a bit more on this point. A Billion Dollars as understood within the West is A THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS. So Bezos has 138.5 THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS!!! Yet he continues to live in a way that will increase his wealth. This is important for many reasons. I will only point out the ones that I think are the most salient at this point. (1) Can you imagine if we truly tried to ‘listen’ and take seriously the ‘real’ desire of a child molesters desire for just ‘one more’?! I am not sure how we have been bamboozled into thinking that anyone that inhabits’ the world of billionaires (and most probably even millionaires) is anything other than a seriously emotionally, and mentally fucked up human being. I don’t mean we have to condemn them, but we sure as hell better stop taking these people’s (the wealthy/owning class) desires seriously. (2) The fact that this Brother (to take but one example) has amassed that level of wealth bespeaks to a remarkable level of brainwashing on the part of virtually all the ‘supporting cast’ that makes his life possible. In the case of the child abuse scandal and cover-up many of these priests got away with heinous behavior because of Clericalism and a system that ‘covered up’ and made horrific excuses for this behavior and conduct and ultimately its effects. In this very same way we have economist, political scientist, and all forms of intellectuals, political, cultural leaders etc. who ‘prop up’ this bullshit of having billionaires as a class. What is staggering is their explanations. I have been at universities where I have heard people with Ph.D.’s say “He (Bezos) works really hard!”, “He (Bezos) is really, really smart!”, one of my absolute favorite bullshit line is this one…”It’s the best we can do”. One of the reasons I find this particularly line of thinking most repugnant is that we have allowed our imagination to be truncated and malformed by the owning class and the system which produced them. In a way, we are all sick, just with different manifestations of the same disease.

I remind my students of a story I read years ago of how we are now taking pictures of Mars. What was staggering was that the camera taking pictures malfunctioned. Even more remarkably WE FIXED THE CAMERA!!! Let me be very clear. If we can fix a fucking camera taking pictures of Mars we have the technology to end world hunger, and if that means (YES IT DOES!!!) not having any Billionaires or Millionaires then no problem. I want to be very clear. I know people (I understand this desire) that wanted to kill the priests accused of molesting the children. I am opposed to this. I would want them to be treated with deep, authentic dignity. Including a life that reflects what it means to be part of our family! (We really are all ONE!) I would also be very damn clear that certain things are ‘off the table’. If (heaven forbid) Bezos’ children happen to ‘become’ one of the 300 hundred children that die day every hour of every day from malnutrition I would find no joy or happiness in that event. In fact, I would fight like hell to make sure it doesn’t happen to any more of their family or loved ones. My guess is that, if this should occur, all of a sudden Bezos might begin to see the absolute stupidity, criminality, and evil in a statement like “It’s the best we can do” …especially if that person could add “Oh, by the way, I am really excited about the new pictures coming from our camera taking pictures of Mars”.

I will end with a quick reflection on some words by my favorite teacher…Jesus Christ. I have struggled with what he meant when he ‘said’ “I am the Way”. I obviously will never fully understand what this means, but as I have gotten older I begin to realize that what he seems to be hinting at is not a ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’ but a praxis. I have found in my 58 years of life that in fact the way of loving action at the service of the victims and more importantly the praxis that reduces the pain suffered by the victims is really the ‘Way’. This includes at times fighting for justice and at other times accompanying the victims and bearing witness to their pain (Our pain as well!). If we are one Body, we must live and walk this WAY.

In the story of Genesis a profound moment of creation is found when we read the following passage; “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (NIV translation). I am haunted today by the image, and echo of Eric Garner last words; “I can’t breathe”. I wonder if the life that was being choked out of him was the Ruach (Breath) found in Scripture? To take seriously the Incarnation of God is to speak of how our corporeality reflects the Divine. It also requires us to take seriously the egregious and brutal nature of what violence does to the materiality of our existence. We know that the breathing apparatus is connected to all systems found in the body. But for a moment let us think about the immediate effect of what the lungs of Eric Garner felt and, in particular, the enfolding of the experience of lack of breath on his body. Did he sense not merely his life ‘leaving’ his body but his existence being extinguished. I wonder if the police officer, Daniel Pantaleo realized he was doing (undoing) the work of God’s Creation. I have suffered from anxiety, and have had my share of panic attacks. I also have family and friends that suffer from severe asthma. In all cases when you experience the inability to draw breath (Life) we sense the immediacy of death. In these moments we are dying and we know it. It feels like a great gift is being taken away from us. I am now understanding how the ‘militarization’ of our milieu is ultimately profoundly un-Godly! This militarization ethos is much larger than merely having the largest military in the history of the world. It goes to creating, maintaining, and recreating a culture that feeds on violence. This is especially reflected on how entire culture of policing in the United States has taken on an incredible appearance of ‘military’ presence. I was recently at a coffee shop (ordering coffee since you couldn’t stay to drink it there). At about the same moment, two police officers came into the coffee shop. These two men were very, very muscular and clearly had on protective gear (military vests, weapons etc.). This wouldn’t have been so odd to me except that they had parked their cars right next to mine. When I left the coffee shop to get into my car, I noticed on their doors were the words “To Protect and To Serve”. I remember feeling that the last thing I felt when I saw these men were protected and that they were there to ‘serve’ my concerns. I don’t think this is only because of the color of my skin (although that is no doubt part of it). It has also to do with my previous interactions with this community. So are these men their to ‘protect and serve’? If so, who/what do they protect and in point in fact who/what do they serve? The fact that these embodiment’s of violence (or if you wish protection and service) seem frequently to work for the benefit of the owning class and wealth accumulation makes these situations and this job, doubly the evil. I am conscious that I will immediately hear cries of ‘not all police’ are ??? But my point is not on the level of particularity, but rather metaphor, symbolic and social representation. I know I would have felt different (so to do I think many people in this place) had a homeless person, or a priest walked in to the restaurant. We would have a sense of the ‘feel’ of the place being changed based on their presence, without even knowing the particulars of the individual. We have to come to terms with is the ubiquitous quality of not only the military ‘feel’ of social reality, but also the omnipresence of an aura of violence as part of our social reality. It has become part of the ‘air that we breath’. It is also important to realize that this ‘air’ is profoundly toxic to the creation of the God who ‘breathed’ life into his Creation. It is onto-logically very dehumanizing. We are creatures who need to breathe. In order to do this we need a healthy humanity, and even more precisely, we need a healthy universe in which we can ‘Breathe’.

I am currently reading a book by noted author Henry A. Giroux entitled America at War with Itself. It is a wonderful read. In the book he asserts that the United States is particularly enamored with violence as one of the fundamental ways to engage reality. He does a great job of showing how our worshiping of violence in general and guns in particular are so much a part of our cultural milieu. As I was reading this part of the book I was sitting outside after purchasing some coffee. I was sitting on a bench just outside of where I purchased my coffee when the owner of the shop reminded me that I could no longer just be ‘outside’ given our current pandemic alert. I did leave but couldn’t help but notice to what lengths we have pulled together and followed the new rules in order to save lives, and express concern for the common good. Many of us have been ‘forced’ to restrict our freedoms because we are deeply aware of how our actions, behaviors, conduct etc. impacts our neighbors. We understand that life is precious and yes, at times, we have to sacrifice certain degrees of freedom and desires for something larger than ourselves. I couldn’t help but draw the comparison to how little we do this in relation to our ‘freedom’ in our ‘Right to Bear Arms’. When you compare the degree of the death caused by this pandemic to the numbers lost every year to gun violence. Yet we are absolutely unwilling to change our conduct, actions, behaviors etc. about guns. My point is that we are aware, under certain conditions, we find it acceptable to understand our freedom as being not absolute or abstractly asserted but always in relation to something larger than our individual proclivities, desires, and choices. Because of our awareness of the potential for the ‘danger’ posed by the Covid-19 virus we now have to adjust our individual desires. I still really, really, really want to go to a coffee shop and read! I know that, for now, this is not the right, moral or legal thing to do! The circumstances have changed! It would be absolutely asinine for me to not take into account the changing reality in which I live. Yet the minute we bring up gun control we immediately speak of it being a threat to the Second Amendment! It’s as though we are completely unaware of how the entire social reality under which that part of a document was constructed no longer exists. Are there some similarities to that time and now? Of course there are! For the time being I was still able to buy coffee at a coffee shop. We as human beings are able to see that some elements of social reality can continue with a reasonable level of assurance that things do not need to change. I am not, for the moment jeopardizing my neighbors by ordering coffee at a coffee house. However, I am also aware that things have to change because we are under a new situation. As I was writing this entry I was wondering whether I should cite statistics but I chose not to do this for 2 reasons. (1) This format (blogging) is not an exercise in academic writing so it does not need to have the same level of evident-based rigor (2) I feel like you can obviously look all of the numbers up. I feel like we have become numb to the ‘numbers game’ in relation to the death tolls by guns. After we re-calibrate what ever ‘normal’ will be after this horrible crisis I want us to reconsider our fetishizing of the concept of ‘freedom’ in general and especially in the area of gun control. Finally, I want to propose that we begin to understand how this entire Covid-19 experience has shown us (in some sense through a tragic level of pain) how in fact we really are connected and ultimately, using a concept from my theological tradition, are found in a Covenant reality. To use a phrase made famous by Dr. Martin Luther King all ‘tied in a single garment of destiny’. On a good day, I believe we will come out of this experience, undoubtedly scarred, but if we can retain some compassion and grow in wisdom as we address the other crises in our midst we might still be able to use this horrific crisis to move humanity a bit closer toward the Beloved Community.

It has been really refreshing to see how many people are immediately making the connection between the anti-human and classist/racist dimension of war at its inception. I believe we can no longer speak of any war, particularly any war waged by the United States of America, as anything like a Just War.  There are too many reasons for my assertion to be fully developed here but I would like to speak to at least some of the reasons for this claim

1. It is now more evident than ever that the fundamental (and foundational) feature of war is its use as a product to create profit and wealth for the ruling class. Many can speak with all kinds of high sounding words and claim allegiance to high principles but the reality is that those that bring us to wars do not believe in any of their words. The issues in not whether what they say is true, but rather do they say it with the intent to seek justice (right relationship) or create peace (Shalom). I am constantly stunned when I hear U.S. officials speak of needing to ‘punish’ a leader of a foreign country for breaking international law when we have actual war criminals (usually guilty of the exact same international law violations!!) on major cable networks or teaching at prestigious universities. Does anyone really believe that these folks care about ‘rule of law’? I cannot help but think of the old saying ‘Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’. We really must stop this stupidity on our part. I think the brilliantly prophetic and insightful words of Arundhati Roy’s quote is so important to illuminate our contemporary reality. “Once weapons were manufactured to fight wars. Now wars are manufactured to sell weapons.”

2. In accepting the ‘Cost of War’ as a normal part of our society we have allowed ourselves to be seduced by the demon forces that makes us compartmentalize social reality. I remember being haunted by the comedian Michelle Wolf’s final words at the 2019 White House Correspondent Dinner. “Flint still doesn’t have clean water”. When we do our calculations for the proportionality of the cost of war, do we calculate all of the deaths and misery which are never even addressed because we have had so many human resources sucked into what Dr. Reverend Martin Luther called the ‘demonic, destructive suction tube.’ of militarism. We must also never surrender to the shallow, and very calculated critique (which is also nonsensical, and frankly stupid) that being against war is being ‘against the troops’. Here again is a case of ‘Fool me once…’. Another calculation that must be brought forth in very explicit terms is the ‘environmental’ cost of a society who has allowed the cancer of militarism to disease its body politic.

3. I also believe that war has its very own logic or ‘power’. This power/logic seems to ‘take over’ virtually all people involved in its execution. The adage that “The first casualty of war is truth” applies to virtually every aspect of this reality. People who are capable of rational thought and critical self-examination surrender all of these faculties along with empathy, historical consciousness among many other things. I find that no matter how much we may wish to create social, physical, intellectual, emotional, psychological spaces of insight, compassion, intelligence etc. The cancer that is the logic of war eventually destroys it all.

4. Let me finally address one of the most common argument which is that there are on this planet such evil and fundamentally ‘flawed’ human beings that we must always be prepared to wage war against them. This argument is absurd at so many levels it just reflects the shallowness of thought that can only occur in a society that has allowed its collective intelligence, and affective capacities to be hijacked by the poison of war. The first (and most obvious) thing to state is that it is utterly remarkable that those that are evil are always ‘them’ and never us. In virtually every war all sides believed that the other side occupied the space of being ‘beyond’ redemption, salvation, reason etc.  The other obvious point is that to the degree that in every war there are ‘members’ within the community of the enemy who in fact don’t belong to this ‘lost’ group. In just one example, when the United States invaded Iraq (or many of the other countries in the Middle East) it was, in part, because of how they mistreated their women. What is most interesting is that in virtually every war that we have engaged in we have killed thousands of women, so obviously there is a certain degree of violence against women that we are willing to tolerate, particularly for the supposed good of ‘freeing women’ or improving the role of women in any society. It might be interesting to see if the various dead women (and their families) would agree with our ‘calculations’? The obvious argument is that our killing of these innocent women was not our ‘intention’. I am certain that the Patriarchal leaders of any country also do not see the oppression of their female fellow citizens as an act of ‘oppression’ but merely a ‘necessary’ loss for the greater good. That sounds hauntingly like the logic used by those who invade the country. What is also interesting is how quickly and effectively the other that was formally a ‘friend’ who seemed to possess the intelligence to be on the ‘good’ side of humanity can immediately and with little explanation become the enemy who is beyond redemption. The most obvious example in recent times is Saddam Hussein. When he was on ‘our side’ (the ‘good’ side) he was a fully functioning human being. If he did something wrong, we found offensive we were either able to turn a blind eye or ‘reason’ with him to change his policy. But somehow, as soon as we decided to go to war with him (and his community) they quite magically lost all their reasoning abilities and even their humanity. This also appeared to be the case with the Soviet Union as they were on the ‘good’ side during World War II but somehow in a ‘magical’ moment they lost all capacities to be reasoned with? Not just their leadership but all their people lost this ability. Also, there is a claim made frequently for the need for the availability of the use of force as an option in cases where less powerful communities must resort to violence (and the use of arms) in order to protect from a more powerful aggressor. However, what is rarely understood is that the very need for them to have weapons comes from the inability for the citizens within the most powerful communities to forthrightly condemn their own countries use of weapons. Not to mention that those who ‘profit’ from war rarely care about the ‘victims’ of war. We can no longer assume (in fact it is stupid for us to think this!) that the owners who manufacture machineries of war care anything at all about creating peace. It is the exact opposite. To paraphrase Brother Mao, we must identify the enemy “precisely” to fight most effectively. The real enemy are all who benefit from war at the cost of our collective humanity and all creation.

There is so much more that can be said but this is merely a brief reflection on this topic. Like all of my entries I hope to elicit dialogue, engagement, and action grounded in deep prophetic love.