I pay a lot of attention to pronoun use. People often say "our nuclear weapons" and/or "what we did in Vietnam". I don't have any nuclear weapons, nor do my friends.

When I spend lots of time/energy fighting something, such as the invasion of Iraq, I don't then turn around and say "what we did in Iraq". I don't assume some mantle of guilt from others for their crimes. Right now, I'm a friend of Iran and I fight DC tooth and nail. I will never in future say "what we did to Syria" as if I had any part in that sorry adventure.

I despise neocons like John Bolton and Michael Morell and don't let them define the country and/or planet I love and am loyal towards. I don't sell out that easily. I do not commit my "we" with nonchalance. Those are not "my" nuclear submarines. They're monstrous devices I hope to outlive. Put them all in museums. They're not my tanks, not my AK-47s, not my F-whatevers. Except in the sense that the whole planet is mine (as much as anyone's) in which case I feel we've built up a huge unsustainable inventory of worthless military junk, which I consider utter crap, complete garbage. If it's mine, then I decree we destroy it, or let it rust in the desert. Lets bring tour groups through and remind them of the Folly of Man. 

I consider it somewhat existentially dishonest the way "little people" strut about saying "my nuclear weapons". I understand their little egos need to feel like they're somehow "a superpower" and that they need to strut and puff as some manifestation of military might and greatness. That's not me though. My ego has no need to prop itself up with fantasies of the vast inventory of nuclear weapons that is mine. Like I said, if it's up to me, I ban them as criminal and see it as the job of responsible engineers down through the generations, from now on, to be working towards their safe disposal.

Views: 194

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm reminded of this quote from The Bothers Karamazov:

"But when he knows that he is not only worse than all those in the world, but is also guilty before all people, on behalf of all and for all, for all human sins, the world's and each person's, only then will the goal of our unity be achieved. [...] Only then will our hearts be moved to a love that is infinite, universal, and knows no satiety."

A truly tremendous statement. Thanks.

Madeleine Reidy said:

I'm reminded of this quote from The Bothers Karamazov:

"But when he knows that he is not only worse than all those in the world, but is also guilty before all people, on behalf of all and for all, for all human sins, the world's and each person's, only then will the goal of our unity be achieved. [...] Only then will our hearts be moved to a love that is infinite, universal, and knows no satiety."


Really glad to have a state senator with strong military credentials standing up against the war in Syria. He'll be harder to dismiss as a "Russian bot". He makes it clear it's not the DoD, but the CIA/State Department getting us ("us") into endless dirty (even filthy) wars. Hillary was among the worst, with her evisceration of Libya, an ally and stable north African country at that point. Then came the deluge of refugees in Europe, thanks to DC's monster policies, hatched by neocons long ago (per Wesley Clark).

Does AFSC ever update its website with new thinking about the war in Syria. This 2013 essay seems pretty weak, in light of how DC continues to stage bombing raids and missile attacks and/or encourages the IDF to do so. I see nothing current on DC's impending unilateral withdrawal from the Iran Deal. Given AFSC's history, I'd think circumventing economic sanctions against DC's "enemies" would by Philadelphia's top priority. I remember when Quakers were brave.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Howard Brod replied to Howard Brod's discussion 'The Earliest Quakers and liberal Quakerism' in the group Liberal Quakers
"Hi Kirby, I guess the question a liberal meeting might ask themselves regarding an outward form…"
3 hours ago
Kirby Urner posted a discussion

What is Primitive Christianity?

I gather from studying the thinking of others at this website, that we're encouraged to share our…See More
12 hours ago
Kirby Urner replied to Kirby Urner's discussion 'No Quakers, Only Quakerism'
"I recognize other reasons for institutional email addresses e.g. clerk@multnomahmeeting.org --…"
13 hours ago
Kirby Urner commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Help finding a specific word for a specific behavior.'
"More context needed.  A perfect stranger?  Mentally ill?"
13 hours ago
Kirby Urner replied to Howard Brod's discussion 'The Earliest Quakers and liberal Quakerism' in the group Liberal Quakers
"What happened in 1828 again?  Was that when Hicksites forked off from Gurneyites? Ah yes, I…"
13 hours ago
Howard Brod commented on Keith Saylor's blog post 'Help finding a specific word for a specific behavior.'
"malicious deceit (sorry, that's two words)"
4th day (Wed)
Volker Eulering updated their profile
4th day (Wed)
Keith Saylor posted a blog post

Help finding a specific word for a specific behavior.

Hello,Imagine this happened to you:You are reading a book on a park bench and someone walks up to…See More
4th day (Wed)

© 2018   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service