Rain Falls

Joke of the day: "A man, horribly crippled and in a wheelchair, started rolling uncontrollably down a street (picture Lombard street in SF). Disheveled and angry, he threw his hands in the air, looked up and shouted 'why me, God? Why me?' over and over again. People saw him and felt sympathy; they began to follow and take up the cry. Soon a big crowd was following, all shouting 'Why me, God? Why me?' ...they came to the bottom of the hill, and found a church. fueled with anger and resentment, they went went into the church, brought the man in the wheelchair to the alter, and in unified chorus rang out 'why me, God? why me?' Suddenly there was a roar of lightning and everyone was disintegrated right on the spot. A deep voice came down from the rafters clearly enunciating the words: 'Because I don't like you!'"

There are alot of levels to this joke. It makes the point that if God really did play favorites, we would probably know. But in truth, rain falls on the just and unjust alike, and it is up to us to see the rain as a blessing or a curse. There is a quote from The Prophet that poetically makes this point: "Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and his nights is worthy of all else from you. And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill his cup from your little stream."

Who are we to determine who is to receive the blessings we give out? God does not act so. In this world she does not go around smiting evil-doers and blessing do-gooders with aught but the fruits of their own labor. So how can we judge others as worthy or unworthy of our gifts?

Another aspect is whether we see what happens to us as a blessing or a curse. Our culture gives the impression that most people see hardship as curse. But I have come to see it as, in many ways, a blessing. Having the requirement to sacrifice something is an opportunity to build and improve oneself. It is my sense that too much prosperity will disconnect people from the truly important things in life and cloud one's life and mind with useless things.

If it is raining on you, it is your choice to enjoy it or lament it. Personally it seems much better for me and my community if I learn to enjoy the hardships of life.

Thoughts on Non-Violence

Social proof, that is what it all comes down to. Without a significant number of people believing something, it isn't going to happen. Non-violence needs more social proof to be seen as a mainstream solution. Luckily, even the under-developed ideas that currently constitute non-violent thought show how powerful it can be at creating social proof.

The best way to do this is to develop a body of knowledge on how non-violence works, as well as a group of people to go around and exercise these methods. It is only in acting on these ideas and principles in a very public way that we can prove their effectiveness. So, we need to both develop an institute to study the subject (already a few in existence!) and a systematic group to practice and refine methods. There are plenty of groups using non-violence out there, but they do not do it systematically and experimentally, nor do they take meticulous notes on it. Non-violent Peaceforce comes as close to this as I have seen. As much as I love them (they are friggin' amazing!) I wish they would put more effort into smaller scale trainings that would empower locals to fight their own battles as well as be part of the NP network. While I totally dig their interventions in the Phillipines and Sri Lanka, I think there is so much more potential than only in those two places. I want something with the capacity to train thousands in the U.S. every year.

I also think that NP focuses too much on peacekeeping as a third party activity. Part of what makes non-violence so powerful is employing it to fight a conflict, not just as a third party peacekeeper. I want to prove to the public that we can fight and win a war non-violently. And to do that, I think it will take thousands of people across the country using non-violent techniques against violent attackers and winning... and making the point that the only reason they won was because of the use of non-violence.

I will give some examples of what I have in mind... I want an organization that can train:
Unions to be more effective at their struggles.
Groups fighting for civil rights issues (racism, sexism, homophobia)
Poverty fighters
College activists
Copwatches - I want them to have the legal authority to intervene if a police officer is doing something illegal, and they will have to win that.
Environmental activists.
People to deal with day to day conflicts in their own lives...
The list could go on for awhile.

I want to help develop an alternative to the violent military and something that can win against the military-industrial complex. I want to disabuse the global public of its infatuation with and belief in violence. I want to give the movement a weapon more effective than violence so that we can transform this world.

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.   

The Futility of Violence

Over the decade of contemplating the issue, I have really come to see violence as futile.  (I would like to make a distinction here, violence is completely different than resistance and force.  Both of which can be done more effectively without using violence).

  

The state has a monopoly on violence, and holy crap, do they exploit that monopoly.  They can easily harm and kill thousands without taking a single causality.  Their tactics have been refined over 5000 years of testing, and they have a institutional research infrastructure second to none.  Even from a violent standpoint the military and police arm of the government is so vast and so effective at violence that it is pointless to hit back.   Many may despair at the armies arrayed against the forces of social justice.  Not I.  For they may have the homefield advantage when it comes to violence, but they are so constricted and captured by the idea of violence that they are unable to fight any other way.  They are a prisoner of their own beliefs.  

By believing that violence is the only way to force people to do things, believing that it is the most powerful force known, and believing that it is, with all things considered, effective, is the key weakness that will allow non-violent resistance to triumph.  Non-violence performs a kind of ideological jujitsu on violence.  It turns what violence believes to be its greatest strength into its greatest weakness.  

Lets see, how to put this.  By committing acts of violence, people make themselves targets for the state to oppress.  The state's monopoly on violence is so ingrained in our society that when violence is committed by anyone else, that person automatically loses the moral high ground in the eyes of the public.  They are seen as a danger to the public, justifying the use of violence against them by the state, in the eyes of the public.  That is the typical scenario violent revolutions face.  Non-violent revolutions, however, totally throw off all the government's preconceived notions of conflict.  

How do you fight people who refuse to comply and refuse to respond violently?  With even partially effective politicking they can maintain the moral high ground against the government, making any violent sortie against them publicly deplorable.  They can non-violently provoke violence from the state in such a way that will undermine the population's belief in state supremacy.  Non-violence uses the violence of an oppressor to undermine their legitimacy. Turning their weapons into liabilities, and their attempted oppression into a PR disaster.  

A non-violent army would be 100x as effective as a violent one.  Imagine if we poured 200,000 unarmed people into our enemies' country?  What would they do?  What could they do?  They could try to kill them, but this would only cause them to lose prestige and support.  They could try to imprison them, but there are not enough prisons to hold them.  Deport them, they just come back.  Confine them and they will drain resources and sneak out.  Leave them alone and they will convert your population.  It is a lose/lose situation for a government.  None of their usual tools of control work against non-violence, and they are left utterly frustrated and stumped as to how to effectively fight back.  

There are some caveats to non-violence, however.  The cause has to be just, or one cannot maintain the moral high ground which is essential to victory.  The means have to be compatible with the end which is sought.  The people have to believe they are doing the right thing.  And, like anything else, it has to be organized, media-saavy, financially supported, and be able to maintain a certain base of support. 

So, this has been my most recent addition to the violence/non-violence debate.  As pre my previous post, I tried to write it in a non-competitive way that would not cause people who believe in violence to dig in their heels. 

The Violence vs. Non-Violence Debate

Wow, I haven't posted in awhile.  Oh well, I will try to make up for it.  

The debate over violence in the left gets pretty ridiculous sometimes, and has been the cause of way too many hurt feelings and splits.  It may seem like a fruitless debate, because there will not be consensus on the issue in the foreseeable future, but I think it is still important to have.  It can be a lesson in how to treat people who disagree with us.  If open to the lesson, one can learn a great deal about how to approach people and try to change their minds.  Analyzing their world-view and beliefs, one can practice adapting arguments to fit the target.  The real challenge in these discussions is not proving the other party wrong, but disarming them and planting the seed of one's idea.

Too many egotistical lefties just want to prove the other side wrong.  It is understandable, it is a nice ego boost to "win" an enraged argument.  But it is not likely to get the opposing party to change their mind.  It is more likely to get them to dig in their heels and refuse to concede.  It becomes a contest, and that is just counter-productive.  Playing verbal jujitsu is necessary to escape this trap.  Do not frame the discussion as a contest of who is right and who is wrong, switch the frame to something that is non-competitive, whatever form of that which is appropriate for the discussion.  

This is particularly hard to do since the American way of speaking, especially the male and academic ways of discussion are often framed as contests.  It has even been hard for me to come up with an example of a different way to frame a discussion.  In fact, I would deem this a great oppression, in a most Orwellian sense, in that our very manner of speaking has been corrupted to such an extent as to limit our capacity to imagine alternatives.

I wish the proponents of non-violence would take this tack on their discussions.  It is far more compatible with the style of non-violence than that of violence, plus I am definitively on the side of non-violence and would like to see the idea win more hearts and minds.  

Jubillee!

What we need to help fix this financial crisis is a Jubilee. I am not suggesting a full scale Jubilee (if you don't know what a Jubilee is, read the Bible Lev 25), but merely a small, simple Jubilee to repair some of the damage. It would not fix everything, but it would go a long way to restoring confidence. I am suggesting that instead of injecting nearly a trillion dollars into the coffers of banks to push them to lend, we simply remove the damage-dealing toxic assets. Yes, the government should pay off the mortgages (or part of them anyway) of all the people who owe on these toxic-assets.
I think republicans should like this, because it is the same idea as tax-cuts, a direct infusion of funds into the hands of people (smaller loan payment=money in pocket). Although I am sure they will complain about giving to the "undeserving." But that is just an arrogant, elitist argument that I will address at a later time. Democrats... well, I think if it didn't look politically costly to do this, they would do it.
A Jubilee has the same benefits as the previous examples of generous government policy has had. The GI bill returned an average of 7 dollars for every 1 dollar spent. The Marshall Plan after WWII is the reason that Europe has a functioning economy. The New Deal built a large percentage of our current infrastructure, without which we would not have as strong an economy. Generosity not only makes more sense, it makes financial sense. And a Jubilee is the ultimate shot of generosity.

Purity on the Left

There are far too many people on the left who have purity issues. They see capitalism as impure (which it is) and try to cut out any connection with it from their lives. This is a DRASTIC MISTAKE. Personally, trying to maintain one's own purity is really self-righteous and selfish. Socially, it removes the influence all of us have over the society we live in. And with regard to the movement it is such SUCH a hindrance to effectively organizing and bringing about change.
To further explain what I am railing against, let me throw out a few examples. I see far too many people on the left simply refusing to befriend people whose ideology is counter to their own... whether they are capitalists or other sects of the left, like Maoists. There is such a stigma against some of these groups that people are afraid to interact or have them around.
<  rant >
(an html joke, for those of you who are wondering what the "" is about)
Life is messy, people. Do not expect to be able to live by one's ideals, it is good to attempt it, but taking it to the level of a dogmatic view of purity is just going to cause pain and turbulence to one and the people around them. Condemning people for their failings will not change them, the only effect it seems to have is it makes people feel superior, which creates such a negative environment.
The biggest failing of the 60s New Left was it's purity driven mentality, it utterly destroyed the movement. Divisions and hatreds developed because people were arrogant enough to believe their way was the only way. I do not want to see that happen again. The greatest success of the New Left, ironically, came from its rank and file members making a compromise between the ideals of the movement and living in a capitalist society. By living differently but still interacting with society at a fundamental level, they have changed American and global culture drastically. So much of the hatreds they railed against in the 60s have much less influence now. Racism is merely the most obvious.
What does this teach us about succeeding as a movement? That it is messy, that you have to have real relationships with people who disagree with you and that you can't shut yourself out of a dirty world for purity's sake. It is like Thomas Merton (a kick-ass activist monk from the 60s, like so many of the prophets of social justice, he died in '68) said, "In the end, it is the power of personal relationships that saves everything." This is literally true, societal change does not come from over-throwing the government, it comes from making friends with people who disagree with you. It comes from convincing young people to change the way they behave. It comes from loving those who you see as your enemy. It does not come from sequestering yourself from the world and not listening to the minds of your fellow humans.

< /rant >

Walking

So, i am going to do 4 posts in rapid succession, since I have been slacking this month. Here is a short one I started at the beginning of the month about walking.

I am constantly amazed by the perception of walking as a hardship. It is not! Walking is a joy and a blessing. People are always surprised that I would prefer to walk places instead of riding my bike or driving. If I have the time, I would much rather walk. It is always such a blissful experience, especially in California. The sun beating down on your face, the fresh air, the soft breeze. It is truly a delight.

It is one of the few activities that has a high chance of yielding epiphanies. My finest thinking is done when I going to and fro, I have time on the journey to contemplate. And these epiphanies make me feel such a connection with the rest of the universe, I would be so much less happy if it were not for walking.

Reconceptualizing Masculinity

Excerpt from my contribution to an email thread on the sds Men's Auxillary listserv:
Hey guys,
this is an awesome thread, and thank you both so much for putting yourselves out there like that, it is really inspiring. I hope the thread continues after my addition to it.

To throw my two cents in about the difference between objectification and attraction: I think objectification is one-dimensional physical attraction that tricks us into making an effort to dehumanize the person being objectified (through thinking of them simply as a body, or a body part or through not thinking about the impact of the situation on them, etc.) Attraction, on the other hand, is about the whole person. When I am attracted to someone, it is more than just their physical appearance, it is their personality and mind. Through observing the way I am feeling about someone, I have literally seen myself find them more physically attractive as I get to know them and find them to be more mentally awesome. And I have seen the reverse of that too, I have found unpleasant people become less physically appealing to me as I get to know them.

I have come to see that claims of being horny and wanting to get laid are a socially acceptable way for men to express their loneliness. Getting with someone for a short period of time, while alot of fun, is so fleeting it. It also lacks the emotional depth that I have found in long-term, loving relationships... and I cannot express in words the incredible feeling of fulfillment that I get from that.

One strategy I have found, that has helped me a great deal, is to interpret my sex-drive not just as an impulse to have sex but as an impulse to emotionally connect with a partner. I am so SOOOOOO much happier for it. Instead of focusing solely on sex, like I used to, I now focus on building a strong emotional bond and sense of understanding between me and my partner (which has the added side effect of making the sex much better, especially when you know someone well enough to be able to read their emotions and extrapolate what is going on in their heads). Now my refocused sex drive pushes me to fight the objectification of people in my mind and work really hard at getting to know them and connect before I go to bed with them.
That has been one way I have been challenging the negative ways I am socialized, and reconceptualizing my masculinity.

Sorry this is already a long email, but I am going to address the point of hypersexualization. I see the way our culture teaches men to be hypersexualized as an oppression, one that causes harm to both men and women. Feeling that I have to act hypersexualized to live up to my identity as a man has really messed with me and my relationships. I would also venture to say that women are taught to be hyposexual (something that awesome classes like FemSex fight against by teaching women about female sexuality). These cultural conditionings need to be changed from what seems like a predator/prey relationship between men and women to something more akin to a symbiotic relationship (gotta love analogies from biology class).

My guess as to why so many people condemn sexual activity is that they see the problems that arise from hypersexualization and think that discouraging sex will prevent it (this does not seem to be an effective strategy). Also from a functionalist point of view, before condoms and effective birth control existed, too much sex created too many babies which could destabilize societies, so these societies responded by developing customs to decrease the amount of sex people had.

Some questions to throw out there in the hopes this convo will continue.
*What are some nasty situations people have had that were caused/exacerbated by these issues?
*What are some effective ways people have found to reconceptualize mascuility/male sexuality and live healthier lives?
*How would an ideal feminist guy act in a relationship and treat their partner? How would he start the relationship? Has anyone managed to try this stuff? Lets hear some success stories!
*Men are socialized to not show emotions, how does this interact with hypersexualized male sexuality? How does it affect you?


Lets get some more voices out here, even just talking about this stuff is healing in itself.

peace and love
Will
Berkeley sds

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 5: And to bleed willingly and joyfully.

The following is an except from Kahlil Gibran's "The Prophet" from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/Gib02.htm

"

Then said Almitra, "Speak to us of Love."

And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them. And with a great voice he said:

When love beckons to you follow him,

Though his ways are hard and steep.

And when his wings enfold you yield to him,

Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.

And when he speaks to you believe in him,

Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.

Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,

So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.

He threshes you to make you naked.

He sifts you to free you from your husks.

He grinds you to whiteness.

He kneads you until you are pliant;

And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.

All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,

Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,

Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.

Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.

Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;

For love is sufficient unto love.

When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, I am in the heart of God."

And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.

But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:

To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.

To know the pain of too much tenderness.

To be wounded by your own understanding of love;

And to bleed willingly and joyfully.

To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;

To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;

To return home at eventide with gratitude;

And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips."

I am always in awe of the wisdom I find in The Prophet. That passage articulates so many of my feelings. If my experiences in the last six months have taught me anything it is this: "And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course." I had my fill of futilely trying to direct my heart, now I have just become resigned to it being out of my control. I hope never to put myself through that frustration again. Another great line is "And to bleed willingly and joyfully." That is the approach I have taken. Reveling in the pain of love lost. And I am much happier for it.

The most insightful line, though, is "But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure." Love is not just about the joys... it is far more than that. It brings a cornucopia of emotions that will turn one's life upside down. Life is incomplete without the complications and problems love causes. And to expect love to be easy and not to require effort is folly and will cause relationships to become unbalanced and slowly eat away their foundation.

Love 4: The Shining Revolution

Seeing myself as part of a larger whole makes generosity more than just a pleasant interaction, it makes it... I don't know, just make sense. It seems like the natural way to act. What is the point of life, if not to give. And so, my life is dedicated to the benefit of all others, who, in reality, are all part of me. I want us to be happy and liberated of the tyranny we impose upon ourselves. To live in a mutually-supportive society that does not follow the fools gold of false logics. To embrace love and spread security. To face evil and punch it square in the jaw with the fist of love. What I really want a revolution that shines.
Now that would be truly irresistible, as the author of a book I just read put it (The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne). That is where embracing love has lead me, and will led the world, to a different social system that does not claim its foundation to be greed and selfishness. A shining revolution will cast the light of love and joy on the dark places in the world. To set a floodlight on the twin oppressions of capitalism, poverty of possessions among the poor and poverty of the spirit among the rich. Oh, how they will quiver and scurry at the rays of light we cast upon them.
But enough with metaphors, a shining revolution will be one of generosity of love. It will be of people living acting differently in their daily lives and embracing love. At the center of it will be education, teaching about love, compromise, conflict resolution, and the nature of humanity. Put simply, living for each other in a direct way instead of the indirect way we live for each other now. Fighting with love and compassion. Having the courage to forgive our "enemies" and try to understand each other. All this is very general because it is up to everyone to decide how it will manifest itself, I am merely citing themes that I have seen in my most splendid visions of it.

A shining revolution would be positively contagious. Joy and love are among the most pathogenic emotions, even consuming the most immune of hearts. No one could evade this plague if enough people become infected. I have noticed this first hand, in the effects of my interactions with other people. When I am happy, which is most of the time, I am a veritable Typhoid Mary. When I am generous, people start acting more generous. I don't see how people can not see how powerful this is. A revolution that embraced this way of being would have more power than any government could handle. If we want our revolution to really change the wheel and win us a different way of life, than it has to be a revolution of love, one that shines and draws people like ants to food. Because it WILL be food, food for the souls of the starving and destitute populace who are hungering for the meaning and fulfillment that material consumption and meaningless work can never bring.