Thoughts on Self-forgiveness

I have come to truly admire religion's almost magic ability to facilitate people's self-forgiveness. A great example of this is the born-again experience or even something as simple as confession... from what I have observed, people who had wronged others and go through a religious ritual concerning being forgiven find it much easier to forgive themselves. I do not think secular people have anything that compares, or atleast I have not noticed it.

Many have little compassion for people who do wrong. I see no logical reason to hold that position. Everyone does things that are not right, and judging them for their trespasses does no good for anyone. We all have weaknesses and failings. Whether they acknowledge it or not, everyone is emotionally impacted in a negative way by their wrongs. Everyone is human so we are all deserving.

Forgiving oneself is much harder than forgiving others. The absence of self-forgiveness causes personal anguish that can adversely affect people's behavior, leading them to act out of this pain. This negative behavior can take many forms, usually providing only short-term relief while only adding to their long-term burden of guilt. Some behaviors I have noticed:

*people often try to belittle others to feel superior,
*hurt people so they don't feel alone in their pain
*being on-edge and easily roused to anger
*pushing people away - socially isolating behavior
*seeking attention through negative behavior
*when others expect negative things from someone, they react by conforming to that standard.
*identity shifting toward viewing oneself as a wrong-doer, reinforcing a cycle of pain
*feeling the necessity to act wrongfully to prove ones identity.

I think this and other similar behavior stems from the following emotions that run through people when they are saddled with a lack of self-forgiveness.

*Guilt
*Anguish
*Fear
*Anger, hatred
*Resentment
*Feeling isolated, and a fear of loneliness
*Social paranoid - expecting no one to like them
*A feeling of helplessness and like they are condemned for life.

The only way out of this that I can see is self-forgiveness. Making amends and seeking the forgiveness of those who one has wronged is, of course, essential in being able to forgive oneself. But usually this is just the beginning of the process. The pantheon of emotions above are powerfully strong and take serious effort to overcome. However, there is no way around it. People who do not forgive themselves end up adding the the cycles of pain that exist in our society and riddle their lives and the lives of people around them with difficulties.

This is why I always cringe when people say they won't help people because they aren't deserving. No one is an island, we are interconnected and refusing to forgive someone for their wrongs and help them actually just hurts society in general.

It seems to be a hidden trend in human culture, that when one person or a group of people harm others, they themselves are harmed as well, but in different ways. I see it in capitalism where the rich suffer a kind of horrid isolation and fear of loss of property while the poor struggle to survive. I see it in patriarchy where men suffer from a prison of false-emotionlessness and isolation while women are objectified and dehumanized. Wrongs by one party hurt everyone including themselves whether they realize it or not.

Forgiveness, self-forgiveness and reconciliation are the only logical way I can see to heal the wounds in our society.

Wars are Arguments #2

Building on my last post, I would like to explain more about Satyagraha which is a method of conflict that goes to the very roots of social ills. Satyagraha's focus is to change society at a very basic level through organizing the populace to both improve their own lot and to act in concert to improve the society. This can take an infinite variety of forms, from encouraging better diet and exercise habits to developing and implementing better political systems. It even takes the form of civil resistance and disobedience. But the main thrust is a transformation of society itself, which is not the government, but the population. Changing minds and people's daily activities is the primary goal. Everything else is secondary to that focus.

Many may question why one should prioritize changing society instead of focusing on taking over the institutions that run society and then use those as a tool to change it. A careful look at history will show that whenever a movement focuses on taking the reigns of power, it always loses sight of the initial goal of improving society and becomes corrupted by the very means they sought to achieve their end, and in most cases fail to achieve the end anyway. Focusing on direct programs and campaigns to improve society has a two-fold benefit. It actually achieves the end of improving society and it brings the added benefit of building political power almost unconsciously. This political power will then almost naturally bring the institutions of power into its orbit over time.

But this is a slow process and not for the weak. A movement must be strong-willed as well as undogmatic in their approach to how to change society. Ever-improving the methods through practical application and revision is essential. This work will bring a movement into conflict with many groups, but through the judicious use of non-violence, these groups can be successfully turned to either acceptance or support. The weak will resort to violence while the strong remain indomitable in the face of oppression. Oppression and other such evils must be met with principled resistance. I found this sweet video introduction to civil resistance from Waging Nonviolence here is the article: http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/08/a-succinct-introduction-to-civil-resistance/ the video itself is embedded below. I agree with most of it, but, similarly to what was said in Waging Nonviolence, I disagree with the supposition that nonviolence is not about winning over your opponents. Most successful revolutions whether they are violent or not have won over atleast large parts of the military and police. Look at the French Revolution, there was basically no internal military support for the King. Anyway, the video is still a good watch.

Civil Resistance: A First Look from ICNC on Vimeo.

Violence by the Oppressed

A typical pro-violence argument that I have heard is that some people are so oppressed that violence is their only option.  But the trend is that the size of the violent apparatus used in oppression is directly proportional to the degree of oppression.  So, for the most oppressed people, they would have the largest odds against their success in their violent struggle.  

I recently read Fredrick Douglass's autobiography (which is really amazing, btw).  And in it, he describes how at the age of 16 after a grueling 6 months under a devious, cold-hearted and brutal overseer he felt that his will was almost completely broken.  After one particularly bad beating, he fled 7 miles back to his master to ask for protection.  He received none.  On his way back to face his punishment for fleeing, he met up with another slave who gave him a root.  This root, the man said, would protect him from being beaten.  When Douglass returned he was confronted by the overseer, he decided that he was not going to be beaten again and fought back.  After what sounded like an epic 2 hour fight, the overseer finally gave up.  But the way he gave up was by saying something like "well, I didn't want to have to beat you so bad.  maybe next time you will think twice before disobeying me" and walked off.  He did not concede defeat, but he did not really win.  Douglass said the next 6 months were much less oppressive since he had won the respect of his overseer.  But, there were several other factors contributing to preventing Douglass simply being shot outright (something which he described happening to other people who resisted the way Douglass did).  The overseer had a reputation for breaking slaves, something he did not want to tarnish by either killing Douglass, or calling for help from other white people or the law.

Now, most would say that Douglass could have done nothing other than fight back violently. But in most cases when slaves did that were summarily killed, even according to Douglass who thought he was sure to die by fighting back.  Douglass recounts how in his child a man who simply refused to move was shot in the head.  Slaves who hit back were either instantly killed, or automatically shipped off and sold.  This does not seem to be an environment where violence is an effective strategy.  It is more likely to get one killed than anything else.  In fact, I would argue that Douglass's other activities were the most productive in fighting against slavery.

Douglass managed, in his childhood, to learn to read and write (mostly from white street urchins).  He started teaching this skill to his fellow slaves.  Lack of education was a key tool used to oppress slaves, so by spreading his knowledge he was directly undermining slavery.  He also spread his outlook and really had an immense impact on the lives of the slaves around him.  He planned escapes and finally succeeded.  After his escape, he wrote his book, which was widely read and has now achieved "classic" status.  His main contributions to ending slavery were not his violent altercations which could have easily ended with his death, but his spreading ideas and knowledge.  Changing people's minds is where the real power is.  If these minds had not been swayed, Britian and the rest of Europe would never have ended slavery.  And the civil war (one of the only instances where the end of slavery was accompanied by widespread violence) would never have happened.  The 13th amendment was passed because enough people thought slavery was evil.  A big part of that was because of publications such as the Liberator and Douglass's autobiography that exposed the fangs of the beast.  By making the violence of the system against unarmed people public knowledge, people's minds were changed.  No slave revolt could ever accomplish that.   

Love 6: A Search

Ok, I promise this is the last blog post on love.
I found a quote that managed to articulate what was still nagging me in this love train of thought. Those moments - when I find others perfectly articulating my thoughts when I cannot - are very special and take my breath away.

"You come to love not by finding the perfect person, but by seeing an imperfect person perfectly." - Sam Keen

There is such beauty in that phrasing. I understand how people can love deeply flawed people, how even after severe heartbreak forgiveness can overtake one's heart. Love grows anew like the stubborn forest after the fire. With gripping roots intact, it sprouts news trunks, branches and leaves. I understand how abused women can stay with their men. Because love is that powerful, it can and does make people do things that would objectively be against their self-interest. It forces forgiveness upon even stubborn hearts and sews up the deep gashes of heartbreak.

I think I understand now, that she never loved me fully. She was searching for the perfect person, and it was the doubt that I was not he which drove us apart. If she had truly loved me, then she would have seen me as perfectly as I saw her despite the fact that we are both quite imperfect. I fear that most people do not understand this concept. Love does not just develop on its own accord, it is a choice, whether conscious or unconscious. I cannot exactly articulate why it is a choice or exactly what that choice is, the best I can explain is that it is a choice between selfishness and selflessness. Selfishness is to fear the opportunity cost of love, while selflessness is to embrace love. I remember making the choice, to really throw myself into it and love not just for myself, but for her. It may have bought me heartache, but it has brought me more happiness than I can express. Even in the midst of love's melancholy there is a wellspring of joy.

I daresay that I hope to never find the perfect person. I never want to be burdened with a search for them, I think it would be like passing through the fires of hell. As Bob Dylan wrote in his song "Abandoned Love": "The pot of gold is only make believe. The treasure can't be found by men who search." No, I am arrogant enough to hope to be blessed a second time with seeing an imperfect person perfectly.

Love

Love is so magical. It manages to intertwine such pure joy with such a deep melancholy quite seamlessly and all the while it emanates a strong sense of sacredness. The versatility of love is astounding, it can generate any mix of emotions. The deepest hatred arises from the death of a loved one. The harshest anger can come from the same, as well as a rejection from a loved one. The most concentrated happiness from those rare perfect days spent with loved ones. The keenest sense of helplessness and apathy when we feel unable to help those we love. The deepest depression when we fail to feel loved. And the most overpowering fear when the possibility of losing a loved one arises.

Many people may consider love to simply be an emotion among many, but I think it is more than that. I think it is the root of everything, a force of nature that is all-powerful. It reminds me of gravity, something you can fight against for a time, but it will always win in the end. The prime effect of it is to bring things closer together, as if they longed for a sweet embrace.

Just as the foundation of physics is gravity, I think that human society is based on love. We humans are glued together with a collective longing to be together, to do good to each other and to be taken care of. We are united in our search for happiness and we seem to only find it with each other. I can think of no better word to describe that than love. The root of what makes us human is love, and those without it begin to become inhuman (I would note that in Harry Potter, Voldemort did not know love. Of course, I would venture to guess that this is because no one risked truly loving him).

I read someone say that love is like slavery. When in love you do whatever you can for your loved one. But it is a joyful slavery, one that is completely voluntary. If fear, greed, and selfishness prevent one from completely embracing love (something I have been deeply affected by, as well as seen and experienced), then we may start to long to be free of it. And that is as deep a loss as anything I have experienced, from both sides of the equation.

For most of my 4 year relationship with Ingrid, I was able to fully embrace love. I would not trade that experience for anything. My whole life bent around her, probably a third of my thinking time was devoted to her, and I would spend hours fantasizing ways to simplely make her smile. I molded my behavior to bring myself emotionally close to her as well as to bring her joy. I studied her ways because I wanted to fully understand her. I ran a 4 year experiment on our relationship revolving around practicing "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," which was probably the most informative experience of my life and a major reason I was able to dive into the relationship so whole-heartedly.

Fully embracing love was overpowering in the most wonderful way imaginable. I can see how embracing love caused an emotional spring in my heart that has never left me. Atleast once a month I am moved to tears. I let myself be moved, scared and riled up by movies. And I no longer hold the reighs on my emotions so tightly for fear of a lack of control. It has been both liberating and deeply meaningful. I find a mysterious pleasure in the melancholy feelings of loss I have been experiencing these past 6 months (since we broke up). It might be because I feel so in touch with humanity and what it means to be human when I feel that way. It could also be because I know that I can replicate it with my next companion.

Of course, toward the end of my relationship I realized that Ingrid was unwilling or as of yet unable to fully embrace love the way I had. So I tried to get distance from love. I am generally able to exert control over my emotions, thoughts and feeling; with stubborn, lengthy effort I can usually manage to change them. But try as I might, my feelings of love would always rear their heads in my mind. I know objectively that this is a good thing; if there is one thing I am unable to change about myself, I guess it is good that it is the perserverence of my feelings of love. And while it might seen easier to try to suppress or excavate them, I have not found that to be the case.

I targeted a great deal of anger and angst toward Ingrid in an attempt to disentigrate my emotional bond to her. It kind of worked for awhile, but I almost feel like I was trying to cut a jet of water with a sword. Of course I can cut through it in a moment, but the force of the water will always keep the jet whole. I know I am unable to turn the jet off, nor do I want to turn my love off... it seems that the only choice I have left is to try to redirect it instead of cut it. It has been an interesting experiment on love, one I hope not to repeat, because it has not been particularly fruitful. It caused me more pain than anything and did not have the effects I wanted it to.

I hope everyone manages to fully embrace love in their lives and relationships, it is the best possible outcome even if you eventually get burned. Not embracing it is a painful, guilt-ridden path to lonliness, something I hope Ingrid realizes one day (and everyone else for that matter). Without love, we are not complete, our human-ness makes us yearn for it. For it is the root of our lives, the foundation of human society, and the glue that keeps us together.

Politicians and power

Real power is not a commodity, it is consent.  Specifically, consent from large groups of people. Power can only be bought when people consent to being bought off, and it can only be stolen when people consent to giving it up through some form of intimidation.  But there is a difference between active consent and apathetic consent.  Active consent produces real, tangible power that can move mountains and change the wheel.  Apathetic consent produces the shadow of power, people go along with it, but their hearts aren't in it.  Consent to the activities and policies of politicians fall into the second category.  Only half the population is motivated to spend one hour or less to do something as easy as voting, now that is apathetic consent to be governed.   

Too many people believe politicians are able to do things, that they have power enough to make decisions themselves.  That is not the nature of the beast.  It was the nature of Monarchs and Emperors, back when people put more stock in the authority of their leaders and were much much more willing to act on their leader's wishes.  But it is not so today.  If a politician asked me to do something, I doubt I would do it unless it was something I was going to do anyway.  I bet the same is true for most of you out there.  We are forced to apathetically consent to their existence, because there is no alternative, as of yet.  Because they receive this type of consent, politicians do not have latitude to do what they wish.  We have stripped them of that power by our lackluster enthusiasm.  Like most of us, their hands are tied, they are stuck in Weber's iron cage of rules and regulations, and without support, they are unable to do what they want just as much as we are unable to create what we wish. 

I am reminded of a story about FDR.  During the early days of his administration, he met with labor leaders, they gave a presentation to try to convince him to adopt their policies.  At the end, FDR told them that they had convinced him and he completely agreed with what they were saying, and that now they had to go out into the public arena and force him to do it.  Hating politicians for being spineless and unable to do what we want is like hating grass for being unable to remain rigid against the wind.  If we want to shift the way the grass bends, we have to change the direction of the wind.  

I don't bother getting angry at politicians anymore.  Not worth the effort, they just do what they do and that won't change until we change our system of government.  Getting some active consent going for a policy will change policy, but it will not change the anti-participatory nature of our republic.  

It seems to me that too many people on the left focus on the people at the top levels of our government, and focus on them for failing to live up to America's ideals.  But they don't have the real power.  The population that apathetically consents to their existence has the REAL power, and they nullify it by being apathetic.  If we ever want to change our society, we have to change the minds of the population and get them organized and acting.  Politicians are a moot point, when the population's minds are changed, the minds of politicians will be changed. Just look at the environmental movement's success in converting the general population.  Even Republicans are now trying to appeal to green-minded voters.  We shouldn't waste our emotional energies decrying politicians and fighting the power-structures unless these activities are aimed at changing people's minds and mobilizing them.  And unfortunately, they often are not aimed at this, they are aimed at forcing authority figures to do what we want.

Walk the Earth as Humans

Building upon the thinking in my previous post, motivation to profit has started to seem like the crutch on which capitalism leans. In "The Age of Revolution" Hobsbawm talks about how employers during the early stages of the transition to capitalism would complain about the "laziness" of their employees. These people would work enough to make ends meet, and then stop. They were not used to the consistent work of industry, where one needs to be on time and to stay the whole time. Workers were more used to the farm and rural mentality of working whenever, and making your own hours. The combination of lack of motivation to work extra and to stay working annoyed the employers... because it cut their efficiency and profits. And this didn't happen just in urban centers of proto-capitalist economies, it happened in colonies and the outskirts of "civilization" too. It is a stereotype in my mind that British colonial officials would always complain about the laziness of the indigenous people. Anthropology pointed out to me that our civilization stereotypes indigenous societies as lazy and unproductive too.

Once the capitalist motivation of profit took hold in people with authority and power, they sought to use other people as tools to profit, and when these people stubbornly resisted by not conforming to capitalist ideals of a worker. But, as people had become tools to profit in the eyes of business owners and employers, they justified terrible repressions. Material starvation was one tecnique that was used to get more work out of their workers. They cut wages, to force them to work longer, and used the law. When the workers fought back by forming unions, these were attacked by the methods of coercion at the disposal of the powerful. This began the protracted war over labor rights which continues to this day. Another method to motivate people was to place immense obligations on their shoulders, such as military service and debt.

But the most effective method they used was cultural re-education. The early capitalists wanted everyone to think like they did, that profit is what they should seek and self-interest is the primary motivator. After three centuries of capitalistic re-education of society and culture shifting, we can see the success of this approach. Our entire civilization is now based on money as a motivator. It is true, there has been significant resistence to this belief, which is why it is not too surprising how many people still live in poverty. Fear of making ends meet, of feeding your family and keeping a roof over their heads is an immensely powerful motivator, and it ensures that people continue to buy into the capitalism by selling their labor and conforming to the rules.

Martin Luther King said something like "Humanity has learned to swim in the sea like a fish and fly in the sky like a bird, but we still can't walk the earth like a man." I think to put it more correctly, we forgot how to walk like a person. This analogy is very astute and gets to the heart of the problem. Humans were not meant to live this way, it is physcially and mentally destructive. Placing profit over people corrupts people's souls, and is mentally oppressive to those who think that way. Walking the earth, as MLK implies, would require us to treat people as an end in themselves instead of a tool. Something that I think most lefties dont realize is that capitalism is an oppression on the affleuent and power as well as on the down-trodden and working class. Where the majority of people suffer from material poverty, the rich suffer from a spiritual poverty that I find to be much more oppressive. And by spiritual I don't mean faith in God, or religion, I mean how much fulfillment one gets out of life; how people treat each other and the ramifications that has on their minds; lack of a deeper meaning than materialism; and suffering from a severe disconnection with other people.

Spiritual poverty is generated because people are not meant to live this way. Humans are social creatures and we have certain dispositions toward each other that capitalism disrupts. Generosity, connection, reciprocacy, and the social glue that holds a society together are all hard-wired into our brains, and when capitalism disrupts them it lays a yoke upon the mind of a person. This burden is so heavy it causes us to flee to transient pleasures to dull the pain and try to escape.

In Kentucky, people took care of each other. It is true that poverty took its toll with alcoholism, drugs, alienation and mental illness. But poverty also brings people together, it connects them and can build strong social ties. Lack of material comfort does not seem too harsh if one's family and friends are there, protecting each other. The affluent world I gained a view of at Brown was much worse, in my opinion. In the words of the Union song "Bread and Roses" by Bobbie McGee, "Hearts starve as well as bodies." And I see starvation of the heart to be a common affliction among the rich.

The capitalist motivation meme seems to have taken on a life of its own. It spurrs us into spending our collective time and energy on things that are not important, into things and not into people. Last time I was flying I had a window seat, and as I looked down, I noticed that I could always see something made by people. We have built so much, and yet we don't realize that it is more important to put effort into people. This does give me hope though. If we could push ourselves to do all this, build this entire world in a couple centuries, then we could push ourselves to do anything. Human culture is surprisingly flexible and powerful, we have drifted so far from our nature, and its impact is also quite impressive.

Thoughts on Happiness and The Meaning of Life.

In trying to make up for June when I didn't write any blog posts, I am writing a few in rapid succession to get some ideas out of my head before they slip away.

Our happiness rests in the hands of the community we build around ourselves. We are happy when we feel loved, secure and fulfilled; when we can share our joys and sorrows with others. Money cannot provide any of that, nor can possessions. Yes, they might give the illusion of it sometimes, but those feelings are always fleeting. They come with the initial rush of emotion but soon fall away. Material pleasures are poor substitutes for the joys of community. When material pleasures become someone's main source of fulfillment, their lives have indeed become empty. They jump from pleasure to pleasure trying to stifle the emptiness they feel inside with the sudden rush of pleasure from some new possession. But when this rush fades, they are left with more emptiness, causing them to fly to something new to avoid their own caustic loneliness. Our economic system takes extreme advantage of this impulse, both facilitating the disruption of community to cause emptiness and giving people the impression that they can find fulfillment in their possessions and the accumulation of more of them.

Indeed, other people are the meaning of life. There can be no other, human nature bars it. Those who fail to realize this and prioritize something else over people always pay an emotional price, and often a material price as well. We all rely on other people, whether directly or indirectly, to give our lives meaning.

Ironically, capitalism is founded on this principle, although it is in a rather perverse way. If other people demand something, than you have a reason to make a living supplying it. The CEO who is afflicted with an ambition to accomplish still depends on his employees to fulfill that accomplishment. Investors who are so concerned about increasing the "value" of their stocks depend on other people to believe it is worth something. Plus, the prestige of accomplishments depends entirely on other people thinking what one has done is impressive.

The rat race, possessions, and other such transient pleasures are of no comparison to the truly deep and lasting happiness generated from close personal relationships. Whether they be romantic or friendly, these relationships are what sustain us. They stave off the specter of unhappiness and loneliness, providing a veritable vaccination for depression. This effect is easily observable in people. People around those who they are in love with are always happier. They tend to be sillier and more pleasant to be around as well, less apt to become frustrated or angry. It is an inspiring thing to see.

And so, I have come to the conclusion that other people are the meaning of life. When one realizes the inherent truth of this, it becomes a simple matter to escape the temptation of excessive material consumption. Indeed, material possessions produce more joy when given away than they ever could when kept. The generous life is the happy life. I hope our society learns this crucial lesson soon.

RYM and societal change.

RYM.  The Revolutionary Youth Movement.  It is something I have been thinking about alot lately, analyzing and reflecting upon its historical impact. 

RYM was a strategic vision that SDS laid out in the 60s, not to be confused with the sds sectarian groups that named themselves RYM I (which eventually became the weathermen) and RYM II (that went maoist and communist and eventually gave birth to countless splinter groups).  Now, I don't think I am getting this exactly correct... but what Michael Lerner described in one of his unpublished books is the basis for this understanding of RYM...  The strategy was simple and very long-term.  The idea was education based: you make a concerted and structured effort to teach as many young people as possible about progressive politics, ethics, and ideas.  You convince them and give them a reason for investing themselves in those politics. When they leave school they will go into the world and spread the ideas, and live their lives by them as much as is possible inside the system.  This will have a culture shifting impact.  Their actions will shift the perceptions of those around them.  Their contributions to their communities will change localities.  

This strategy combines the finest strengths of the left.  Strength of ideas, education, embodiment of principles, decentralized structure and grassroots action are all combined into an extremely long-term strategy that appears to have been quite effective.  It acknowledged the shifts that always occur when generations turn-over.  As new generations come and older ones leave, culture changes.  RYM takes advantage of this natural process of culture change by attempting to reform society by reshaping the minds of new generations.  

Unfortunately, RYM was only practiced for... perhaps the better part of a decade, if not less.  But it's impact is striking.  Take the issue of racism for example.  50 years ago, racism was the dominant viewpoint among large swaths of the American public, including in my hometown of Edmonton.  But now, racism has been forced underground.  It is now a shameful thing to be seen as or acting as a racist.  

But aside from issue oriented changes, I would also like to see how 5 to 10 years of RYM affected the life of a single person... me.  I am proud to say my parents were both products of RYM, whether they know it or not.   The ideas they garnered from the 60s allowed them to move to rural Kentucky and raise me there.  My mom's strong strain of feminism probably would have not been able to develop had it not been for RYM, and I would have lost one of the major positive influences on the way I structure my behavior toward everyone.  My Dad's political side also had an immense impact on shaping my perspective and direction in life.   

The compassion and dedication both of my parents have shown through their social work were, in part, inspired by their politics which were shaped by RYM.   Their dedication to helping others, even if you have to live "in the trenches" as my Dad has said, has consistently inspired me to live up to their example.  

Now lets look at the town I grew up in.  It is a town of 1500 people in rural Kentucky.  The poverty rate is nearly 25%. According to my Dad, there were duels in the streets in the 50s.  However, over the past 3 decades things have calmed down.  There are still plenty of problems, but since the influx in the 70s of hippies and people shaped by RYM, the culture of the county has changed.  Many of these hippie settlers have become community leaders.  Their children have gone on to change the minds of their peers and further the reverberating effects of RYM.  I can see the culture-shifting affects in my hometown of the concerted efforts of relatively small group of tens of thousands of young adults over the course of several years trying to institute RYM.  If between 5 and 10 years of instituting RYM can so drastically change our society that a small rural town in the middle of no where Kentucky is impacted this much, then imagine what a organized effort of 20 years of RYM could do.  With this technique we could restructure the very foundations upon which our society rests over the course of the next 100 years.  

The Way Out of Madness

I believe it was Martin Luther King who said "The curve of the universe is toward Justice." and Gandhi who told us to look back at history when we despair and see how "the way of truth and love has always won" in the end. Indeed, Love is the foundation of human society, so how it be any other way.

It is utter madness to me, all the violence and hatred that is infecting us. A pandemic of Madness on a scale that has scarce been seen in the annuals of human existence. But the cure does exist. In all its many forms, it has existed since the beginning. However unrefined it may be at this point in history, it has caused the collapse of empires and the restructuring of societies. Always has this cure been based on love, never on hate or apathy. This cure has been wielded by the greats of history to make their worlds better. The Plebeians of Athens used it to bring greater equality to their city. Jesus wielded it against the Romans and the corrupted officials of his land. Buddha used it against the corruption he saw in his own society. Gandhi used it in India, MLK used it in America.
The way out of Madness, the cure to the sickness of hatred is to embrace the love that all human organization and life is built upon. Understanding why this is, is the quintessential necessity behind vaccinating future generations against the diseases of the soul that our world is experiencing.

The way out of Madness is not just an idealistic approach, it is entirely practical. Humans are hard-wired to love, to want to be together, and to live for each other. This is the reason that isolation is a universal punishment across human societies.
Many will throw out examples of people who fail to live up to this ideal, i.e. misanthropes, psychopaths, etc. Unfortunately, there are many people who are so damaged by their experiences, so unable to cope with the horrible situations they are in, that they have fallen for false logics which compel them to do yet more damage to themselves and those around them. To heal these we must not ostracize them or isolate them, we must embrace them and show them the love that every human deserves. This is the idea behind rehabilitation prisons, and why punitive prisons consistently fail to prevent crime. The design of human nature makes this an inevitable fact.

The way out of Madness encompasses non-violence, as violence will only enrage and firm up the will of one's opponent. Violence will only drive a wedge between brothers and force them to believe each other to be less than human. Indeed, the way out of Madness is to believe that we are all humans and treat each other with the dignity that all humans deserve.

The full breadth of the way out of Madness is so expansive that it could not be contained within an entire encyclopedia set. But it can be boiled down to its essence, which is The Golden Rule.
Love all as you would have them love you.