Chose Violence Quotes

So the more things remain the same, the more they change after all—plus c'est la même chose, plus ça change. Nothing endures, not a tree, not love, not even a death by violence.

I'll never understand why you chose violence as a road to peace, I'll never understand why you chose fear as a remedy to hate, but I will not repeat your mistakes. If I'm going to continue down the path you've paved, then I'm going to walk it at my own pace.

Like more than one Englishman in New York, he looked upon Americans as hopeless children whom Providence had perversely provided with this great swollen fat fowl of a continent. Any way one chose to relieve them of their riches, short of violence, was sporting, if not morally justifiable, since they would only squander it in some tasteless and useless fashion, in any event.

One night Death left his card. I was not familiar with the name he chose: but the black edge was deep. I flung it back. A thousand awakenings of violence.

Je sens en moi quelque chose de trouble qui me fait peur, une violence qui m’épuise. Mais j’accepte la grande aventure d’être moi.

You chose her,” he says. “Over me.” “Over your pride.” The word I use is hubris. Our word for arrogance that scrapes the stars, for violence and towering rage as ugly as the gods.

I understand why Laura did what she did. I think I'm supposed to be mad at her, but I'm not. I admire her courage. She saw what the world had to offer and said, No thank you. She saw the lies and hypocrisy and violence and hate and meaningless of it all and she chose another path. She won't live to see her grandchildren, but also won't live to see them suffer.

A.E.Housman' No one, not even Cambridge was to blame (Blame if you like the human situation): Heart-injured in North London, he became The Latin Scholar of his generation. Deliberately he chose the dry-as-dust, Kept tears like dirty postcards in a drawer; Food was his public love, his private lust Something to do with violence and the poor. In savage foot-notes on unjust editions He timidly attacked the life he led, And put the money of his feelings on The uncritical relations of the dead, Where only geographical divisions Parted the coarse hanged soldier from the don.

Je veux savoir ce que c'est que la passion, lui entendait-elle dire. Je veux ressentir quelque chose avec violence.

The owner of The Mandrake Hotel and Resort is a man called Rot, a billionaire like Bill Gates, only nerdier. 
 Rot Kugelschreiber isn’t the name he was born with. No, the name on his birth certificate is Dark Jar Tin Zoo. He chose that penname because in German it means Red Pen—and a Red Pen is mightier than a Red Sword, which in turn is mightier than a Rothschild. 
 Most of the time he goes by Rot, but occasionally he reverts back to Dark Jar Tin Zoo.

En même temps, il perçoit soudain avec acuité ce qu'il est en train de perdre, une accalmie dans sa vie hérissée de violence, quelques heures de trève pour s'assoupir un peu, à vrai dire pas grand chose, juste de quoi rendre l'existence supportable.

How baffling you are, oh Church, and yet how I love you! How you have made me suffer, and yet how much I owe you! I would like to see you destroyed, and yet I need your presence. You have given me so much scandal and yet you have made me understand what sanctity is. I have seen nothing in the world more devoted to obscurity, more compromised, more false, and yet I have touched nothing more pure, more generous, more beautiful. How often I have wanted to shut the doors of my soul in your face, and how often I have prayed to die in the safety of your arms. No, I cannot free myself from you, because I am you, though not completely. And besides, where would I go? Would I establish another? I would not be able to establish it without the same faults, for they are the same faults I carry in me. And if I did establish another, it would be my Church, not the Church of Christ. I am old enough to know that I am no better than anyone else. …) The Church has the power to make me holy but it is made up, from the first to the last, only of sinners. And what sinners! It has the omnipotent and invincible power to renew the Miracle of the Eucharist, but is made up of men who are stumbling in the dark, who fight every day against the temptation of losing their faith. It brings a message of pure transparency but it is incarnated in slime, such is the substance of the world. It speaks of the sweetness of its Master, of its non-violence, but there was a time in history when it sent out its armies to disembowel the infidels and torture the heretics. It proclaims the message of evangelical poverty, and yet it does nothing but look for money and alliances with the powerful. Those who dream of something different from this are wasting their time and have to rethink it all. And this proves that they do not understand humanity. Because this is humanity, made visible by the Church, with all its flaws and its invincible courage, with the Faith that Christ has given it and with the love that Christ showers on it. When I was young, I did not understand why Jesus chose Peter as his successor, the first Pope, even though he abandoned Him. Now I am no longer surprised and I understand that by founding his church on the tomb of a traitor(…)He was warning each of us to remain humble, by making us aware of our fragility. (…) And what are bricks worth anyway? What matters is the promise of Christ, what matters is the cement that unites the bricks, which is the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit is capable of building the church with such poorly moulded bricks as are we. And that is where the mystery lies. This mixture of good and bad, of greatness and misery, of holiness and sin that makes up the church…this in reality am I .(…) The deep bond between God and His Church, is an intimate part of each one of us. (…)To each of us God says, as he says to his Church, “And I will betroth you to me forever” (Hosea 2,21). But at the same time he reminds us of reality: 'Your lewdness is like rust. I have tried to remove it in vain. There is so much that not even a flame will take it away' (Ezechiel 24, 12). But then there is even something more beautiful. The Holy Spirit who is Love, sees us as holy, immaculate, beautiful under our guises of thieves and adulterers. (…) It’s as if evil cannot touch the deepest part of mankind. He re-establishes our virginity no matter how many times we have prostituted our bodies, spirits and hearts. In this, God is truly God, the only one who can ‘make everything new again’. It is not so important that He will renew heaven and earth. What is most important is that He will renew our hearts. This is Christ’s work. This is the divine Spirit of the Church.

Just twenty-one years after Columbus’s first landing in the Caribbean, the vastly populous island that the explorer had renamed Hispaniola was effectively desolate; nearly 8,000,000 people—those Columbus chose to call Indians—had been killed by violence, disease, and despair.

The key difference between Jesus and the Pharisees described in the Gospel accounts is in which narratives they chose to embrace. Similarly, the question for us is not whether or not we will choose, but rather which narratives we choose to embrace, and how will we choose them?

Did it show the dark side of the heroes in The Hero City? Did it show the violence and the betrayal, the cruelty, the depravity, the bottomless evil in some of those “heroes’” hearts? No, of course not. Why would it? That was our reality and it’s what drove so many people to get snuggled in bed, blow out their candles, and take their last breath. Marty chose, instead, to show the other side, the one that gets people out of bed the next morning, makes them scratch and scrape and fight for their lives because someone is telling them that they’re going to be okay. There’s a word for that kind of lie. Hope.

Je condamne l'ignorance qui règne en ce moment dans les démocraties aussi bien que dans les régimes totalitaires. Cette ignorance est si forte, souvent si totale, qu'on la dirait voulue par le système, sinon par le régime. J'ai souvent réfléchi à ce que pourrait être l'éducation de l'enfant. Je pense qu'il faudrait des études de base, très simples, où l'enfant apprendrait qu'il existe au sein de l'univers, sur une planète dont il devra plus tard ménager les ressources, qu'il dépend de l'air, de l'eau, de tous les êtres vivants, et que la moindre erreur ou la moindre violence risque de tout détruire. Il apprendrait que les hommes se sont entre-tués dans des guerres qui n'ont jamais fait que produire d'autres guerres, et que chaque pays arrange son histoire, mensongèrement, de façon à flatter son orgueil. On lui apprendrait assez du passé pour qu'il se sente relié aux hommes qui l'ont précédé, pour qu'il les admire là où ils méritent de l'être, sans s'en faire des idoles, non plus que du présent ou d'un hypothétique avenir. On essaierait de le familiariser à la fois avec les livres et les choses ; il saurait le nom des plantes, il connaîtrait les animaux sans se livrer aux hideuses vivisections imposées aux enfants et aux très jeunes adolescents sous prétexte de biologie ; il apprendrait à donner les premiers soins aux blessés ; son éducation sexuelle comprendrait la présence à un accouchement, son éducation mentale la vue des grands malades et des morts. On lui donnerait aussi les simples notions de morale sans laquelle la vie en société est impossible, instruction que les écoles élémentaires et moyennes n'osent plus donner dans ce pays. En matière de religion, on ne lui imposerait aucune pratique ou aucun dogme, mais on lui dirait quelque chose de toutes les grandes religions du monde, et surtout de celles du pays où il se trouve, pour éveiller en lui le respect et détruire d'avance certains odieux préjugés. On lui apprendrait à aimer le travail quand le travail est utile, et à ne pas se laisser prendre à l'imposture publicitaire, en commençant par celle qui lui vante des friandises plus ou moins frelatées, en lui préparant des caries et des diabètes futurs. Il y a certainement un moyen de parler aux enfants de choses véritablement importantes plus tôt qu'on ne le fait. (p. 255)

I chose not to fight it. Eating them...is my revenge.

- Mais tu sais, l'alcool ne te guérira pas. Il ne faut pas que tu croies ça. Ça apaisera tes blessures, mais cela t'en donnera d'autres, peut-être pires. Tu ne pourras plus te passer de l'alcool, et même si, au début, tu éprouves une euphorie, un bonheur à boire, ça disparaîtra vite pour ne laisser place qu'à la tyrannie de la dépendance et du manque. Ta vie ne sera que brumes, états de sémi-conscience, hallucinations, paranoïa, crises de delirium tremens, violence contre ton entourage. Ta personnalité se désagrégera... - C'est ce que je veux ! martela Antoine en frappant le comptoir de son petit poing. Je n'ai plus la force d'être moi, plus le courage, plus l'envie d'avoir quelque chose comme une personnalité. Une personnalité, c'est un luxe qui me coûte cher. Je veux être un spectre banal. J'en ai assez de ma liberté de pensée, de toutes mes connaissances, de ma satanée conscience ! ("Comment je suis devenu stupide", p34)

La Vérité n'a pas de sentier, et c'est cela sa beauté : elle est vivante. Une chose morte peut avoir un sentier menant à elle, car elle est statique. Mais lorsque vous voyez que la vérité est vivante, mouvante, qu'elle n'a pas de lieu où se reposer, qu'aucun temple, aucune mosquée ou église, qu'aucune religion, qu'aucun maître ou philosophe, bref que rien ne peut vous y conduire . alors vous verrez aussi que cette chose vivante est ce que vous êtes en toute réalité : elle est votre colère, votre brutalité, votre violence, votre désespoir. Elle est l'agonie et la douleur que vous vivez. La vérité est en la compréhension de tout cela, vous ne pouvez le comprendre qu'en sachant le voir dans votre vie. Il est impossible de le voir à travers uneidéologie, à travers un écran de mots, à travers l'espoir et la peur.

Il regarda autour de lui avec une brusque violence, comme si le passé était là, tapi dans l'ombre de la maison, mais hors de portée. — Je ferais tout pour que les choses soient comme avant. Exactement comme avant.

Free to live whatever life he wants. There are dangers. There is infection, there is violence, there is weather and the problem of currency and a million forces that could work against them. But maybe none of that matters because he chose it.

There is so much anger buried deep inside me that if I dump them out onto the world, there won't be any world left. So I chose to turn that anger into strength instead of weakness - I turned that anger into an instrument of creation rather than a weapon of destruction.

Les spécialistes de la solution de problèmes ont quelque chose en commun avec les menteurs purs et simples: ils s'efforcent de se débarrasser des faits et son persuadés que la chose est possible du fait qu'il s'agit de réalites contingentes. En vérité,on ne peut jamais y parvenir, que ce soit au moyen de la théorie ou par la manipulation de l'opinion publique- comme si, pour annuler une réalité, il suffisait qu'un nombre assez élevé de personnes soit persuadé de son inexistance. On ne peut y parvenir que par un acte de destruction radicale.

As a child she knew her motherland as a place of violence and barbaric power struggles, for that is how they spoke of it in France, and that was what her exiled mother chose to believe. ‘We are lucky,’ whispered her mother, ‘that we survived it.’ But her mother did not survive France.

Slumped to the floor. The pit of blackness welcomed her to let go and fall into the murky depths where conscience and pain ceased to exist. Hands to her head, face to the stone, screaming without sound, she pushed back hard. For nine months she’d tasted happiness, a chance at the closest thing she’d known to peace and a real life. For nine months the rage and violence that had defined so many of her years had finally ebbed, and now those who had no right had come with impunity to rip her out of this newfound calm, throwing her into an impossible situation where no matter what she did or what she chose, the end result would be a return to madness.

Mae Brussell began to study the pattern of Nazis coming to the United States after World War Two and patterns of murders identical to those in Nazi Germany. It was as if an early Lenny Bruce bit—on how a show-bit booking agency, MCA, chose Adolf Hitler as dictator—had actually been a satirical prophecy of the way Richard Nixon would rise to power. “How much violence was there in Nazi Germany,” Mae asks rhetorically, “before the old Germany, the center of theater, opera, philosophy, poetry, psychology and medicine, was destroyed? How many incidents took place that were not coincidental before it was called Fascism? What were the transitions? How many people? Was it when the first tailor disappeared? Or librarian? Or professor? Or when the first press was closed or the first song eliminated? Or when the first political science teacher was killed coming home on his bike? How many incidents happened there that were perfectly normal until people woke up and said, ‘Hey, we’re in a police state!

relationship with nature, modern humanity has generally been the aggressor, and a daring one at that, altering the flow of rivers, building upon geological faults, and, today, even engineering the genes of existing species. Nature has generally been languid in its response, although contentious once aroused and occasionally displaying a flair for violence. By 1918 humankind was fully modern, and fully scientific, but too busy fighting itself to aggress against nature. Nature, however, chooses its own moments. It chose this moment to aggress against man, and it did not do so prodding languidly. For the first time, modern humanity, a humanity practicing the modern scientific method, would confront nature in its fullest rage.

Rape and sexual assault are unusual, if not quite unique, in that often, the only real evidence of a crime is the victim's testimony. Physical evidence might demonstrate that a sexual encounter took place between two people, but even cuts and bruises can't definitively prove lack of consent on one person's part. Especially if the accused is the alleged victim's friend, lover or spouse, or someone with whom they freely chose to leave a party. Ultimately, in the absence of photographic or video evidence, it comes down to one person's word against another's. The most obvious tragic result of this fact is that nearly half of rapes are never reported, fewer are prosecuted, and even fewer lead to a felony conviction. Victims wonder what the point of reporting uncorroborated sexual violence is, and they're not wrong.

We have no school for the turning-out of stanch men in this nineteenth century. In the old, earnest times, war made men stanch and true to each other. We have learned up a good many glib phrases about the wickedness of war, and we thank God that we live in these peaceful, trading times, wherein we can — and do — devote the whole of our thoughts and energies to robbing and cheating and swindling one another — to “doing” our friends, and overcoming our enemies by trickery and lies — wherein, undisturbed by the wicked ways of fighting-men, we can cultivate to better perfection the “smartness,” the craft, and the cunning, and all the other “business-like” virtues on which we so pride ourselves, and which were so neglected and treated with so little respect in the bad old age of violence, when men chose lions and eagles for their symbols rather than foxes.

I could have hated Richard for his father’s crimes, but chose instead to love him for himself. He turned out to be quite a man, don’t you think? You have been defeated by the heir you wanted. An heir born with the gift. That is rare. Richard is the true Seeker. From the Rahl blood, he has the rage of the anger, the capacity for violence. But it’s balanced with Zorander blood, the capacity for love, understanding, and forgiveness.

My job was to come up with a backstory of violence. I’d been a shy kid. All I did was draw. I never came close to fighting anybody. Instead of gambling with the other kids, I chose the blue sky, and treasured not the gold leaf on their playing cards, but the golden sundown rimming actual young leaves. Looking back, I can say that loving nature was an error. Not seeing my affection for the weakness that it was, I put a stain upon my youth.

Je vois les choses comme ça : le travail n'est rien, juste un salaire. Ce qui compte c'est d'avoir la tête entre les pieds, le visage au ras du sol pour s'occuper d'en bas. Ce qui compte c'est de plier la nuque vers la terre, d'avoir pour elle plus d'attention que pour les hommes. Ainsi, pour le temps qui reste, il est bon d'avoir affaire aux autres, de se comprendre à fleur de visage, de se raser pour une femme, de combattre toute violence. (p. 29)

There, in my murder theater, young Roman gladiators offered up their lives for my amusement; and all the deaths that took place there not only had to overflow with blood but also had to be performed with all due ceremony. I delighted in all forms of capital punishment and all implements of execution. But I would allow no torture devices nor gallows, as they would not have provided a spectacle of outpouring blood. Nor did I like explosive weapons, such as pistols or guns. So far as possible I chose primitive and savage weapons—arrows, daggers, spears. And in order to prolong the agony, it was the belly that must be aimed at. The sacrificial victim must send up longdrawn- out, mournful, pathetic cries, making the hearer feel the unutterable loneliness of existence. Thereupon my joy of life, blazing up from some secret place deep within me, would finally give its own shout of exultation, answering the victim cry for cry. Was this not exactly similar to the joy ancient man found in the hunt?

There is no way to know Jackson’s thought process as he prepared to engage the Union army in front of him. He knew very little about it and certainly he had no idea that, at the moment he ordered his men to advance, he was actually outnumbered five to one. But it was characteristic of the man that his means of determining the enemy’s strength was to hit the enemy in the face and then see what happened. Typical, too, was his impatience to fight. As at Port Republic, he chose to attack before his full force had arrived.

Un pays exclusivement occupé d'intérêts matériels, sans patriotisme, sans conscience, où le pouvoir est sans force, où l'Élection, fruit du libre arbitre et de la liberté politique, n'élève que les médiocrités, où la force brutale est devenue nécessaire contre les violences populaires, et où la discussion, étendue aux moindres choses, étouffe toute action du corps politique ; où l'argent domine toutes les questions, et où l'individualisme, produit horrible de la division à l'infini des héritages qui supprime la famille, dévorera tout, même la nation,

There were several trees bleakly reaching into the fog. Any one of them might have been the one I was looking for. Unbelievable that there were other trees which looked like it here. It had loomed in my memory as a huge lone spike dominating the riverbank, forbidding as an artillery piece, high as the beanstalk. Yet here was a scattered grove of trees, none of them of any particular grandeur. [...] So the more things remain the same, the more they change after all - plus c'est la même chose, plus ça change. Nothing endures, not a tree, not love, not even a death by violence.

Growing numbers of us are acknowledging with grief that many forms of supremacy—Christian, white, male, heterosexual, and human—are deeply embedded not just in Christian history, but also in Christian theology. We are coming to see that in hallowed words like almighty, sovereignty, kingdom, dominion, supreme, elect, chosen, clean, remnant, sacrifice, lord, and even God, dangerous vices often lie hidden. . . . We are coming to see in the life and teaching of Christ, and especially in the cross and resurrection of Christ, a radical rejection of dominating supremacy in all its forms. The theological term for [this] is kenosis, which means self-emptying. . . . Rather than seizing, hoarding, and exercising power in the domineering ways of typical kings, conquistadors, and religious leaders, Jesus was consistently empowering others. He descended the ladders and pyramids of influence instead of climbing them upwards, released power instead of grasping at it, and served instead of dominating. He ultimately overturned all conventional understandings of . . . power by purging [it] of violence—to the point where he himself chose to be killed rather than kill.

There were several trees bleakly reaching into the fog. Any one of them might have been the one I was looking for. Unbelievable that there were other trees which looked like it here. It had loomed in my memory as a huge lone spike dominating the riverbank, forbidding as an artillery piece, high as the beanstalk. Yet here was a scattered grove of trees, none of them of any particular grandeur. ... So the more things remain the same, the more they change after all - plus c'est la même chose, plus ça change. Nothing endures, not a tree, not love, not even a death by violence. Chap. 1

Remembering the life of Robert F. Kennedy 45 years after his life was tragically taken by a senseless act of violence. His final campaign of peace and justice (that sadly last only 85 days) still echoes true near a half a century later. His words will speak truth to the end of time: Humanity must strive to chose peace over war, love over hated, nonviolence over discord and violence. We must continue caring for those in need. Remembering that in spirit we are one. When we use our energy to destroy others...in the end we destroy ourselves and a piece of humanity in the process. www.bullyingben.com www.robertfkennedycenter.org

Except now I found myself asking whether those impulses—of violence, greed, corruption, nationalism, racism, and religious intolerance, the all-too-human desire to beat back our own uncertainty and mortality and sense of insignificance by subordinating others—were too strong for any democracy to permanently contain. For they seemed to lie in wait everywhere, ready to resurface whenever growth rates stalled or demographics changed or a charismatic leader chose to ride the wave of people’s fears and resentments. And as much as I might have wished otherwise, there was no Mahatma Gandhi around to tell me what I might do to hold such impulses back.

Et s’il venait avec violence ? Et s’il venait et ne me lâchait plus, un chagrin venu pour rester, et me faisait ce qu’avait fait mon désir d’Oliver ces nuits où il me semblait qu’il manquait quelque chose de si essentiel à ma vie que cela aurait aussi bien pu manquer à mon corps, de sorte que le perdre alors, lui, serait comme de perdre un bras qu’on peut voir sur toutes les photos de soi dans la maison, mais sans lequel on ne pourra plus être vraiment soi-même. On le perd, comme on a su qu’on le perdrait, et comme on s’y était même préparé ; mais on ne peut se résigner à cette perte. Et espérer ne pas y penser, ne pas rêver à ce qu’on a perdu, est tout aussi amer.

We have learned up a good many glib phrases about the wickedness of war, and we thank God that we live in these peaceful, trading times, wherein we can — and do — devote the whole of our thoughts and energies to robbing and cheating and swindling one another — to “doing” our friends, and overcoming our enemies by trickery and lies — wherein, undisturbed by the wicked ways of fighting-men, we can cultivate to better perfection the “smartness,” the craft, and the cunning, and all the other “business-like” virtues on which we so pride ourselves, and which were so neglected and treated with so little respect in the bad old age of violence, when men chose lions and eagles for their symbols rather than foxes.

I am told there are readers of Genesis who argue the following: If evolution is true, there was no Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no fall. If there was no fall, we didn’t need Jesus to save us. But this argument has reversed things. In reality, we know we needed Jesus to save us, and we recognize the way Genesis describes our predicament as human beings. We know we have not realized our vocation to take the world to its destiny and serve the earth; we know there is something wrong with the world in its violence; we know there is something wrong with our relationships with one another, especially relationships between men and women and between parents and children; and we know there is something wrong with our relationship with God. We also know we die, so we know we need Jesus to save us. The question Genesis handles is, Was all that a series of problems built into humanity when it came intoexistence? The answer is no. God did not create us that way. There was a point when humanity had to choose whether it wanted to go God’s way, and it chose not to. The Adam-and-Eve story gives us a parabolic account of that. They ignored the red light and crashed the train. God brought the first human beings into existence with their vocation, and they turned away from it. That is true whether or not you believe that the theory of evolution helps us understand how God brought them into existence.

Sacrifice is a notoriously hard concept to understand. Indeed, it is not a univocal concept, but is a name used for a variety of actions that attempt communication between the human and the divine or transcendent spheres.7 Contemplation of the abyss reveals the enormity and complexity of the evil that has been perpetrated upon a society. What would it take to overcome it? The images of cross and blood figure prominently in the Pauline language of reconciliation (cf. Rom 5:9; Col 1:20; Eph 2:13-16). Both cross and blood have paradoxical meanings that allow them to bridge the distance between the divine and human worlds, between life and death. The cross was the ultimate sign of Roman power over a conquered and colonized people. To be crucified was the most dishonorable and humiliating of ways to die. The cross stood as a sign of reassertion of Roman power and the capacity to reject and exclude utterly. Yet it was through the crucified Christ that God chose to reconcile the world. The apparent triumph of worldly power is turned against itself and becomes “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). For John, the cross is at once instrument of humiliation and Christ's throne of glory (Jn 12:32). Similarly, blood is a sign of the divine life that God has breathed into every living being, and its shedding is a sign of death. The blood of the cross (Col 1:20) becomes the means of reconciling all things to God. In its being shed, the symbol of violence and death becomes the symbol of reconciliation and peace. To understand sacrifice, one must be prepared to inhabit the space within these paradoxes. Sacrifice understood in this way is not about the abuse of power, but about a transformation of power. A spirituality of reconciliation can be deepened by a meditation on the stories of the women and the tomb. These stories invite us to place inside them our experience of marginalization, of being incapable of imagining a way out of a traumatic past, of dealing with the kinds of absence that traumas create. They invite us to let the light of the resurrection—a light that even the abyss cannot extinguish—penetrate those absences.

This act of whistleblowing was not like other acts of whistleblowing. Historically, whistleblowers reveal abuse of power that is surprising and shocking to the public. The Trump-Ukraine story was shocking but in no way surprising: it was in character, and in keeping with a pattern of actions. The incident that the whistleblower chose to report was not the worst thing that Trump had done. Installing his daughter and her husband in the White House was worse. Inciting violence was worse. Unleashing war on immigrants was worse. Enabling murderous dictators the world over was worse. The two realities of Trump’s America—democratic and autocratic—collided daily in the impeachment hearings. In one reality, Congress was following due process to investigate and potentially remove from office a president who had abused power. In the other reality, the proceedings were a challenge to Trump’s legitimate autocratic power. The realities clashed but still did not overlap: to any participant or viewer on one side of the divide, anything the other side said only reaffirmed their reality. The realities were also asymmetrical: an autocratic attempt is a crisis, but the logic and language of impeachment proceedings is the logic and language of normal politics, of vote counting and procedure. If it had succeeded in removing Trump from office, it would have constituted a triumph of institutions over the autocratic attempt. It did not. The impeachment proceedings became merely a part of the historical record, a record of only a small part of the abuse that is Trumpism.

Just outside of Greater Los Angeles, in a town called Claremont, are five colleges—Pomona, Pitzer, Scripps, Harvey Mudd, and Claremont Mckenna. At the start of the Great Panic, when everyone else was running, literally, for the hills, three hundred students chose to make a stand. They turned the Women’s College at Scripps into something resembling a medieval city. They got their supplies from the other campuses; their weapons were a mix of landscaping tools and ROTC practice rifles. They planted gardens, dug wells, fortified an already existing wall. While the mountains burned behind them, and the surrounding suburbs descended into violence, those three hundred kids held off ten thousand zombies! Ten thousand, over the course of four months, until the Inland Empire could finally be pacified.

My world, my Earth, is a ruin. A planet spoiled by the human species. We multiplied and gobbled and fought until there was nothing left, and then we died. We controlled neither appetite nor violence; we did not adapt. We destroyed ourselves. But we destroyed the world first. There are no forests left on my Earth. The air is grey, the sky is grey, it is always hot. It is habitable, it is still habitable—but not as this world is. This is a living world, a harmony. Mine is a discord. You Odonians chose a desert; we Terrans made a desert…. We survive there, as you do. People are tough! There are nearly a half billion of us now. Once there were nine billion. You can see the old cities still everywhere. The bones and bricks go to dust, but the little pieces of plastic never do—they never adapt either.

The family was also the welfare system, the health system, the education system, the construction industry, the trade union, the pension fund, the insurance company, the radio, the television, the newspapers, the bank and even the police. When a person fell sick, the family took care of her. When a person grew old, the family supported her, and her children were her pension fund. When a person died, the family took care of the orphans. If a person wanted to build a hut, the family lent a hand. If a person wanted to open a business, the family raised the necessary money. If a person wanted to marry, the family chose, or at least vetted, the prospective spouse. If conflict arose with a neighbour, the family muscled in. But if a person’s illness was too grave for the family to manage, or a new business demanded too large an investment, or the neighbourhood quarrel escalated to the point of violence, the local community came to the rescue.

What few knew at the beginning, but many of us know now, is that this was a typical response on the part of this intensely individualistic man, who had attended Waseda in the late 1960s, at the height of the student riots in Tokyo, and joined in the violence but strictly as an independent; he refused to join any political group or faction but hurled stones at the police in his own right. Today we know Murakami as the man who went to Jerusalem to accept the Jerusalem Prize from the Israeli government and in his acceptance speech criticized the Israeli state for its military actions against civilians in Gaza, declaring to his hosts, in effect, that if they chose to bring their massive military and political power against the individuals protesting in the Gaza Strip, then, right or wrong, he would stand against them. This was his now famous declaration of the “wall and eggs” metaphor, in which powerful political systems are seen as a great stone wall, and individuals as eggs, hopelessly and rather suicidally hurling themselves against its implacable strength.

Being raised evangelical in the Midwest gave me a personal experience of the phenomenon called “religious fundamentalism.” A story illustrates. When I was a boy in high school, I was interested in a girl from our church. It was an evangelical church, although some might have called it a bit fundamentalist—taking a hard line on cultural issues. But I took a chance and invited her to a movie, which was certainly frowned upon back then in our church culture (though my own parents snuck us out to Walt Disney movies at the drive-in, where we were unlikely to be spotted). I chose The Sound of Music, thinking it was “safe.” Who could object to Julie Andrews, I confidently thought? I was wrong. As we left the house, my girlfriend’s father stood in the doorway, blocking our exit, and said to his daughter, “If you go to this film, you’ll be trampling on everything that we’ve taught you to believe.” She fled downstairs to her bedroom in tears. We missed the movie, and the evening was a disaster. A year later, the fundamentalist father watched The Sound of Music on his television—and liked it. Fundamentalism is essentially a revolt against modernity. It is a reaction usually based on profound fear and defensiveness against “losing the faith.” My girlfriend’s father instinctively knew that his religion should make him different than the world. That is a fair religious point, and to be honest, there is much about modernity that deserves some revolting against. But I wish he had chosen to break with America at the point of its materialism, racism, poverty, or violence. Instead, he chose Julie Andrews.

Weininger remarque que rien n’est plus déconcertant pour l’homme que le fait de constater, lorsqu’il demande à une femme surprise en train de mentir : « Pourquoi mens-tu ? », que celle-ci ne comprend pas la question, reste étonnée ou cherche à le tranquilliser en souriant, ou bien encore éclate en sanglots. Cela signifie que la femme ne saisit pas l’aspect éthique, transcendantal, du mensonge, ce en quoi il représente une lésion de l’« être » et ce pour quoi il peut constituer, comme le reconnut l’Iran ancien, une faute plus grave encore que le meurtre. Déduire ce trait de la nature féminine de facteurs sociologiques est une sottise : pour certains, le mensonge aurait été l'« arme naturelle » utilisée par le plus faible, donc aussi par la femme, dans une société où elle a été soumise à l’homme pendant des siècles. La vérité, c’est que la femme purement féminine a tendance à mentir et à se présenter pour ce qu’elle n’est pas, même quand cela ne lui sert de rien ; il ne s’agit pas là d’une « deuxième nature » acquise socialement dans la lutte pour l’existence, mais de quelque chose qui est lié à sa nature la plus profonde et la plus typique. De même que la femme absolue ne perçoit pas vraiment le mensonge comme une faute — ainsi pour la femme féminine, contrairement à l’homme, le mensonge n’est pas une faute, n’est pas un fléchissement intérieur, ni un manquement à sa propre loi existentielle. C’est une contrepartie éventuelle de sa plasticité et de sa fluidité. Aussi bien peut-on comprendre parfaitement un type de femme comme celui dont Barbey d’Aurevilly a dit : « Elle pratiquait le mensonge au point d’en faire une vérité, tant elle était simple et naturelle, sans effort et sans affectation ». Il est absurde de juger la femme à l’aune des valeurs de l’homme (de l’homme absolu), même lorsque, faisant violence à elle-même, elle feint de l’imiter et croit même sincèrement l’imiter.

Everyone knew of the guy who chose to live on the street rather than in his home, where his abandoned wife or caring children couldn’t keep him. Common knowledge. Or the guy who just fucked his life up so badly, no one wanted to be near him, his own violence and temper putting him on the street. The guy who won’t even try to hold on to his family.

They [i.e., freed slaves] lived in an atmosphere of extreme hostility and suspicion, with the status of “outlaws,” in the oldest meaning of that term—which did not originally mean “criminals,” but people outside the protection of the law. They could not get justice; they and their relatives were murdered while the killers went free; their right to marry whom they chose was abrogated; by force and violence they lost the right to vote; and when they sought to improve their lot through education, their teachers were threatened and a schoolhouse was destroyed.

Il ne suffit pas au complexe médiatico-politique de convaincre les Français qu’ils ne sont pas un peuple, ou qu’ils le sont seulement au sens purement administratif de l’expression ; il leur faut encore, joignant l’humiliation à l’insulte, les persuader qu’ils ne l’ont jamais été, qu’ils ont rêvé leur histoire commune, que même leur existence passée, dont ils pourraient avoir la nostalgie, est un leurre, un pur fantasme, une illusion d’optique, une construction de l’esprit ; qu’en somme, et comme tant d’autres choses dont ils sont pourtant bien certains qu’ils s’en souviennent distinctement ou qu’ils les éprouvent jour après jour, comme la violence, comme l’insécurité, comme l’hébétude organisée, comme le désastre de l’école, tout ça c’est dans leur tête.

I have sacrificed!” I shouted and the flames which lit my body blazed like a beacon for all to see. “I have given everything I was and everything I am to this fight. I have cried and raged and pleaded for the heavens to favour us just once, but they turned their games on us instead and took all I had to offer. I never promised to give them any of this. I never agreed to the price they chose, so let my love be unbreakable and brutal and cruel and endless, the harbinger of war and the summoner of violence. Let it be all those things and more because I am done sacrificing myself for the stars and their entertainment. I am done being a puppet in their games. They took from me too many times and now they will have to face the monster they made when they incited me because I. Have. Had. Enough!

most creatures just want to be seen, acknowledged. Ignoring someone is the greatest act of violence. Reducing someone to insignificance is the worst wound you can inflict. So she watched. She watched until the ghost chose to pull away.

Was that their lot in life, something women like them had to accept? To try to be content as violence and cruelty touched their lives? Yet God had not created them for this. Daisy chose to believe that. They said that God was good and yet there was so much evil. He did not wipe it out, and the evildoers seemed to prosper when the poor and abused simply... vanished from memory. Daisy noted the church at the far end of the street. Its steeple with a cross perched on top. There was more to God than she understood, but there was hope in her heart too. She had read a Psalm once in which the author pled for vengeance against wrongdoers, and later he praised God for providing a way of escape. A refuge. Resolved, Daisy straightened her shoulders. She must find a refuge. Answers for Elsie, for Hester May--- even for Lincoln. Perhaps this was why God didn't wipe the earth clean of the wicked. He chose instead to use the weak ones, such as her, to rise up in His strength and become warriors.

je sentais la pluie se faufiler dans mon cou, ruisseler sur mon visage en m'aveuglant parfois, c'était un abandon total, quelque chose d'infiniment doux, une volupté de chagrin et de liberté que je m'autorisais enfin. Peu à peu, la violence à laquelle j'avais tenté de résister pendant toute la nuit semblait s'atténuer. J'avais un désir immense de paix. Peut-être fallait-il que je cède à cet homme, à son geste, à sa protestation silencieude dont j'ignorerais toujourd la cause, mais à laquelle il m'avait associée avec son sourire. Je le laissais s'installer en moi, avec tout son mystère, je l'adoptais.

Jesus is sometimes lauded as one of the great moral teachers of all time, [...] But it is important to realize that the reasoning behind his moral teaching is not the reasoning most of us use today. People today think that we should live ethically for a wide variety of reasons—most of them irrelevant to Jesus—for example, so we can find the greatest self-fulfillment in life and so we can all thrive together as a society for the long haul. Jesus did not teach his ethics so that society could thrive for the long haul. For Jesus, there was not going to be a long haul. The end was coming soon, and people needed to prepare for it. Those who lived according to the standards he set forth, loving God with all their being and loving one another as themselves, would enter into the kingdom of God that was very soon to appear. Anyone who chose not to do so would be destroyed when the Son of Man arrived in judgment from heaven. Jesus’s ethics were an “ethics of the kingdom” both because the kinds of lives his followers led when they followed these ethical principles would be the kinds of lives they would experience in the kingdom—where there would be no war, hatred, violence, oppression, or injustice—and because a person could enter into the kingdom only by living in this way. […] Most Christians today do not realize that they have recontextualized Jesus. But in fact they have. Everyone who either believes in him or subscribes to any of his teachings has done so—from the earliest believers who first came to believe in his resurrection until today. And so it will be, world without end.

Soyons claire: que l'on ne tolère pas la violence sexiste est la moindre des choses, mais gare aux effets de hiérarchisation de ses victimes, qui amène à considérer certaines insultes sexistes comme pires que d'autres parce qu'elles comparent des femmes à d'autres femmes. Une double peine pèse alors sur les TdS (travailleuses de sexe) en particulier, condamnées de tous cotés et cumulant les stigmates liés à leur genre (pour les misogynes) et à leur activité (pour presque tout le monde).

Mom was released from jail on bond and prosecuted for a domestic violence misdemeanor. The case depended entirely on me. Yet during the hearing, when asked if Mom had ever threatened me, I said no. The reason was simple: My grandparents were paying a lot of money for the town’s highest-powered lawyer. They were furious with my mother, but they didn’t want their daughter in jail, either. The lawyer never explicitly encouraged dishonesty, but he did make it clear that what I said would either increase or decrease the odds that Mom spent additional time in prison. “You don’t want your mom to go to jail, do you?” he asked. So I lied, with the express understanding that even though Mom would have her liberty, I could live with my grandparents whenever I wished. Mom would officially retain custody, but from that day forward I lived in her house only when I chose to—and Mamaw told me that if Mom had a problem with the arrangement, she could talk to the barrel of Mamaw’s gun. This was hillbilly justice, and it didn’t fail me.

We chose different paths—I chose complacency, and he chose violence—but we both chose murder, and that’s where our paths cross.

chapitre xviii Aux sources des religions La thèse développée par l'anthropologue français René Girard dans La Violence et le Sacré 1 , et dans Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde 2 , illustre la manière dont, des religions traditionnelles les plus anciennes

Loss is the shocking catalyst of transformation. I saw that this mountain valley, haunted by senseless murders, darker, had absorbed unthinkable violence and turned it into mesmerizing light. My rape became my catalyst. Rape gave me cause to flee the muteness—forced me into making a bold and forceful change. I chose to fight to find a way to leave to seek my own strength and beauty. I was searching to find the way to make light.

The harsh dimness that follows loss isn’t static, but charged with the energy of immanent change. Hurt, I was left with a choice: wallow and stay in the dark, or seek light and fight to reach it. These two paths emerged. I had this choice to make. Loss is the shocking catalyst of transformation. I saw that this mountain valley, haunted by senseless murders, darker, had absorbed unthinkable violence and turned it into mesmerizing light. My rape became my catalyst. Rape gave me cause to flee the muteness – forced me into making a bold and forceful change. I chose to fight to find a way to leave to seek my own strength and beauty. I was searching to find the way to make light.

Que les forts attaquent les faibles, c'est un mal parfois inévitable et même à certains égards une loi naturelle, à condition toutefois que les moyens ne violent pas les normes de la nature comme c'est le cas dans les guerres mécanisées, et que la force ne serve pas des idées intrinsèquement fausses, ce qui serait une anomalie de plus (1) ; mais que les forts écrasent les faibles au moyen d'une hypocrisie intéressée et des bassesses qui en résultent, cela n'est ni naturel ni inévitable, et il est gratuit et même infame de mettre sur le compte de la "sensiblerie" toute opinion qui condamne ces méthodes ; le "réalisme" politique peut justifier les violences, jamais les vilénies. (1) C'est donc surtout aux guerres tribales ou féodales que nous pensons, ou encore aux guerres d'expansion des civilisations traditionnelles. D'aucuns objecteront qu'il y a toujours eu des machines et qu'un arc n'est pas autre chose, ce qui est aussi faux que de prétendre qu'un cercle est une sphère ou qu'un dessin est une statue. Il y a là une différence de dimensions dont les causes sont profondes et non quantitatives.

Polygamy had been early introduced, contrary to the divine arrangement at the beginning. The Lord gave to Adam one wife, [92] showing his order in that respect. But after the Fall, men chose to follow their own sinful desires; and as the result, crime and wretchedness rapidly increased. Neither the marriage relation nor the rights of property were respected. Whoever coveted the wives or the possessions of his neighbor, took them by force, and men exulted in their deeds of violence. They delighted in destroying the life of animals; and the use of flesh for food rendered them still more cruel and bloodthirsty, until they came to regard human life with astonishing indifference.

By the terms of the Partition Award, Bengal had been divided, with the eastern wing going to Pakistan and the western section staying in India. Calcutta, the province’s premier city, was naturally a bone of contention. The Boundary Commission chose to allot it to India, sparking fears of violence on the eve of Independence.

Au milieu des cris qui redoublaient de force et de durée, qui se répercutaient longuement jusqu'au pied de la terrasse, à mesure que les gerbes multicolores s'élevaient plus nombreuses dans le ciel, le docteur Rieux décida alors de rédiger le récit qui s'achève ici, pour ne pas être de ceux qui se taisent, pour témoigner en faveur de ces pestiférés, pour laisser du moins un souvenir de l'injustice et de la violence qui leur avaient été faites, et pour dire simplement ce qu'on apprend au milieu des fléaux, qu'il y a dans les hommes plus de choses à admirer que de choses à mépriser.

Some women chose to embody this new form of physical empowerment & transformed their words into actions. Exhibition boxer Minnie Rosenblatt Besser had spent years training in the manly art of boxing. She promised to meet any willing opponent, male or female, in the ring. Besser specifically called out several famous male boxers but insisted that she was most anxious to meet Brooklyn boxer Eddie Avery, who had been arrested for wife-beating. Besser explained, 'Any man who will strike a helpless woman I believe to be a coward. Should Avery pluck up enough courage to meet me I think I will prove the truth of this proposition to the world at large.

D'en haut et de loin, c'est vrai que ce n'est qu'une poussière ici mais cette poussière existe, elle est quelque chose. Quelque chose avec son envers et son endroit, son soleil et son ombre, sa vérité et son mensonge. Les vies sur cette terre valent autant que les vies sur les autres terres, n'est-ce pas ?

A long, awful process of selection chose out the listless, ignorant, sly and humble and sent to heaven the proud, the vengeful and the daring. The old African warrior spirit died away of violence and a broken heart.

Quand Madame Machin pose une heure de retenue sur un acte que Monsieur Truc passe sous silence, ou quand Monsieur Bidule fait ce qu’il veut comme il veut en bafouant le règlement intérieur, il y a un problème de cohérence à traiter d’abord entre adultes. La première étape me semble être une réflexion qui distingue le « grave » du « pas grave » dans les accrocs à une bonne vie ensemble. Le premier niveau de cohérence entre les adultes concerne la loi dans l’établissement. Il n’y a en réalité que deux règles à faire respecter dans un établissement scolaire : la sécurité des personnes et le respect de la propriété des objets. Cette synthèse autour de ces deux règles ne rend pas leur application simple pour autant parce qu’elles ne disent pas de manière automatique ce qu’est une transgression. Il y a les transgressions nettes : le coup porté, le vol. Il y a le plus souvent les transgressions sur le bord de la limite : le coup porté en réponse à une autre violence, l’insulte maugréée, l’emprunt forcé, la dégradation regrettée. Il me semble irréaliste de construire un dispositif dans lequel une sanction serait prévue pour chaque transgression. Une transgression est toujours prise dans un contexte, dans des circonstances aggravantes ou atténuantes qu’il faut au minimum nommer pour être juste. Dans ce domaine, les enfants auront toujours plus d’imagination que les adultes et aussi pénibles soient-elles, les transgressions sont nécessaires. Sans prise en compte des circonstances, on supprime l’espace de parole autour de la Loi, or la Loi s’érige dans la parole. La question n’est donc pas de répéter le même discours comme un automate à chaque transgression d’élève mais que chacun s’accorde à faire quelque chose de ces transgressions : une parole, une sanction, une réparation. (p. 38)

A witch-pricker's finger can be pointed at any one of us. It chose me.

This story is as common as dirt. Thousands of Native Americans in California, Arizona, and New Mexico could tell it. Anyone with a grandpa who was haunted by Indian boarding school, who stung his family like a dust devil when he drank. Anyone with a grandma who washed laundry until her fingernails cracked and bled, who went without eating when there weren’t enough groceries because she wanted her ten kids to have a few extra bites. Anyone with a mother who kept secrets so her kids wouldn’t find out about their father’s jailbird past. Anyone with a father who chose the violence of industrial labor over the violence of reservation life because he wanted his kids to get through private school and make better lives for themselves. So many people could tell this story, it is shocking how rarely it has been told. Too many mothers have watched their kids thrown into cop cars without protest. Too many aunties have put ice on black eyes without saying a word. Too many grandmothers have watched their grandchildren, their hope for the future, head out to a party and never come home. Too many girls have pretended nothing happened after experiencing sexual harassment, only to redirect the hate toward the innocent face staring back at them in the mirror.

You don’t have to lie for people to believe you or to believe on what happened. You can choose to tell the truth without exaggerating. Lies will make you lose.

Elle avait toujours été du côté des femmes dans la lutte contre les violences, du côté des victimes, mais à présent, elle cherchait avant tout à protéger son fils. Elle avait découvert la distorsion entre les discours engagés, humanistes, et les réalités de l'existence, l'impossible application des plus nobles idées quand les intérêts personnels mis en jeu annihilaient toute clairvoyance et engageaient tout ce qui constituait votre vie.

I read Publisher’s Weekly for months and learned that successful commercial fiction often had 3 elements: horror, sex, and violence. Also, readers enjoyed learning something on a specific topic. It was, ergo, not a complete waste of time; I chose to write about psychosis.

We could have done this the nice way, but you chose the nasty way.

Most days, Brela woke up and chose violence. Today was proving to be no exception.

Our explanations for why the war was waged rarely went beyond one-word answers: oil, Israel, Halliburton. Most of us chose to oppose the war as an act of folly by a president who mistook himself for a king, and his British sidekick who wanted to be on the winning side of history. There was little interest in the idea that war was a rational policy choice, that the architects of the invasion had unleashed ferocious violence because they could not crack open the closed economies of the Middle East by peaceful means, that the level of terror was proportional to what was at stake.

Il n'a jamais frappé ma mère, mais : l'a menacée de disparition, traitée de connasse et de vioque une bonne centaine de fois, a tendu son poing au-dessus d'elle, lui a agrippé les seins de colère et d'excitation mêlées dans la cuisine, lui a rappelé qu'elle n'était pas bonne à grand chose, puis lui a rappelé le contraire, qu'elle pouvait tout faire, qu'elle était bien plus intelligente et talentueuse qu'elle n'osait se le figurer. L'a comblée et humiliée, parfois dans une même phrase, un même geste, l'a tordue. Une seule chose était certaine : sans lui, elle ne s'en sortirait pas. Il ne m'a jamais frappée avec ses poings, mais : m'a jetée d'un coup de pied du haut de l'escalier, pris le bras entre ses deux mains, tordant ma peau d'enfant sous la sienne, plus rêche, plus marquée par la vie, m'a menacée surtout, souvent, pour m'apprendre la vie, m'a dit et répété que j'allais le payer, plus tard, que je paierais tout, même ce que je n'avais pas fait, que tout se payait, son poing au-dessus de mon visage, m'a dit et répété cela, me parlant d'une voix fauve, comme on montre les crocs.

But I woke up and chose violence. And the funny thing was, I’d do it again.

Voici le coût de l’aliénation collective : une violence qui s’exprime contre les autres, mais aussi contre soi-même. En fin de compte, la surmortalité masculine révèle une souffrance qui est la somme des injonctions incorporées par les hommes depuis l’enfance : exhibition virile, culture de l’excès, surinvestissement dans le travail, refus de la plainte, choix de la taciturnité, inaptitude à exprimer ses émotions. Une figure du destin masculin dans les sociétés patriarcales : trimer pour les siens et mourir avant eux. Non seulement les hommes sont vulnérables, mais de surcroît ils le nient et on le nie. Les souffrances du masculin reposent sur des inégalités de genre, et c’est une ultime injustice que de ne pas le reconnaître. Personne n’a envie de voir que la virilité construit autant les hommes qu’elle les détruit. La masculinité de domination paie, mais elle se paie aussi. Son coût, c’est l’insécurité de l’ego, la vanité puérile, le désintérêt pour la lecture et les choses de l’esprit, l’étiolement de la vie intérieure, le rétrécissement de l’horizon social (depuis le choix d’un métier « masculin » jusqu’à l’imbécillité misogyne et homophobe) et, pour finir, la diminution de l’espérance de vie.

I woke up every morning and chose violence. I woke up every morning and chose myself, before everyone else, no matter the consequences. Sometimes it felt like I left my body behind and let my mind inhabit a new one.

My frustration soared, and I raised a fist and smacked down on the engine casing. “Ye piece of shite. Fifteen minutes. That’s all we’re asking of ye. Your sole reason for existence is to take people from point A to B. But no. Today ye woke up and chose violence.” I thumped it again, harder. “I’m naw taking this from one more person or thing in my life. I’ll take ye apart piece by motherfucking piece so each dies a watery death. Is that working for ye? Start or die.

J’insiste sur le fait que, comme pour toute autre action, la question de la violence ne doit jamais être discutée du point de vue de la légalité. La Légalité n’importe pas et nous devons rompre avec tout légalisme éthique - la Loi n’a pas de contenu éthique parce que, en dernière instance, elle est seulement la volonté particulière d’autres individus qui est parvenue à s’imposer dans le système politique et à être soutenue par la police. D’ailleurs, lorsque l’argument de la légalité est présenté par les autorités, il ne faut jamais oublier de rétorquer que la personne la plus condamnée de France est le préfet de police de Paris, avec 135 condamnations pour entrave au droit d’asile en 2016. Puisque les hommes et les femmes d’État savent s’affranchir de la Loi pour leurs propres objectifs, il n’y a aucune raison que nous ne puissions faire de même. Ce qui compte, toujours, c’est la justice et l’éthique - et la conformité à la Loi n’est pas un critère pertinent pour l’analyse. Quelque chose peut être légal et répugnant (la morte de Trayvon Martin) et quelque chose peut être hors du droit et pur (la fuite d’Edward Snowden par exemple). Nous ne devons jamais utiliser les catégories de légalité ou d’illégalité pour évaluer nos actions ou celles des autres.

We chose violence - Anna-mich en krieske

In England where the radicals were allowed to gather in Hyde Park and say what they chose, crimes of political violence were practically unknown. On the other hand, in America, where it was customary for the police to arrest radicals and club and jail them, such crimes were common.

This act of whistleblowing was not like other acts of whistleblowing. Historically, whistleblowers reveal abuse of power that is surprising and shocking to the public. The Trump-Ukraine story was shocking but in no way surprising: it was in character, and in keeping with a pattern of actions. The incident that the whistleblower chose to report was not the worst thing that Trump had done. Installing his daughter and her husband in the White House was worse. Inciting violence was worse. Unleashing war on immigrants was worse. Enabling murderous dictators the world over was worse.

In the programs and statements of these parties one hears echoes of classical fascist themes: fears of decadence and decline; assertion of national and cultural identity; a threat by unassimilable foreigners to national identity and good social order; and the need for greater authority to deal with these problems. Even though some of the European radical Right parties have full authoritarian-nationalist programs (such as the Belgian Vlaams Blok’s “seventy points” and Le Pen’s “Three Hundred Measures for French Revival” of 1993), most of them are perceived as single-issue movements devoted to sending unwanted immigrants home and cracking down on immigrant delinquency, and that is why most of their voters chose them. Other classical fascist themes, however, are missing from the programmatic statements of the most successful postwar European radical Right parties. The element most totally absent is classical fascism’s attack on the liberty of the market and economic individualism, to be remedied by corporatism and regulated markets. In a continental Europe where state economic intervention is the norm, the radical Right has been largely committed to reducing it and letting the market decide. Another element of classical fascist programs mostly missing from the postwar European radical Right is a fundamental attack on democratic constitutions and the rule of law. None of the more successful European far Right parties now proposes to replace democracy by a single-party dictatorship. At most they advocate a stronger executive, less inhibited forces of order, and the replacement of stale traditional parties with a fresh, pure national movement. They leave to the skinheads open expressions of the beauty of violence and murderous racial hatred. The successful radical Right parties wish to avoid public association with them, although they may quietly share overlapping membership with some ultraright action squads and tolerate a certain amount of overheated language praising violent action among their student branches. No western European radical Right movement or party now proposes national expansion by war—a defining aim for Hitler and Mussolini. Indeed the advocates of border changes in postwar Europe have mostly been secessionist rather than expansionist, such as the Vlaams Blok in Belgium and (for a time) Umberto Bossi’s secessionist Northern League (Lega Nord) in northern Italy. The principal exceptions have been the expansionist Balkan nationalisms that sought to create Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, and Greater Albania.

Somehow, I was doubtful. It wasn’t Singh’s fault. He had done his part, following the playbook of liberal democracies across the post–Cold War world: upholding the constitutional order; attending to the quotidian, often technical work of boosting the GDP; and expanding the social safety net. Like me, he had come to believe that this was all any of us could expect from democracy, especially in big, multiethnic, multireligious societies like India and the United States. Not revolutionary leaps or major cultural overhauls; not a fix for every social pathology or lasting answers for those in search of purpose and meaning in their lives. Just the observance of rules that allowed us to sort out or at least tolerate our differences, and government policies that raised living standards and improved education enough to temper humanity’s baser impulses. Except now I found myself asking whether those impulses—of violence, greed, corruption, nationalism, racism, and religious intolerance, the all-too-human desire to beat back our own uncertainty and mortality and sense of insignificance by subordinating others—were too strong for any democracy to permanently contain. For they seemed to lie in wait everywhere, ready to resurface whenever growth rates stalled or demographics changed or a charismatic leader chose to ride the wave of people’s fears and resentments. And as much as I might have wished otherwise, there was no Mahatma Gandhi around to tell me what I might do to hold such impulses back.

Except now I found myself asking whether those impulses - of violence, greed, corruption, nationalism, racism, and religious intolerance, the all-too-human desire to beat back our own uncertainty and morality and sense of insignificance by subordinating others - were too strong for any democracy to permanently contain. For they seemed to lie in wait everywhere, ready to resurface whenever growth rates stalled or demographics changed or a charismatic leader chose to ride the wave of people's fears and resentments.

Kevin M. Cecil is a lifelong Sacramento resident with a lifelong commitment to serving the community. With experience in a variety of legal areas & settings, including criminal defense, personal injury, divorce, divorce / family law, & civil litigation, Mr. Cecil chose to concentrate on family law. He has assisted clients in many areas of family law, including guardianships, dependency actions & domestic violence restraining orders.

Un exemple de symbolisme, à première vue arbitraire et excessif mais en fin de compte plausible, est le hadîth qui voue les peintres et les sculpteurs au fond de l’enfer. On objectera évidemment que les arts plastiques sont naturels à l’homme, qu’ils existent partout et qu’ils peuvent avoir une fonction sacrale, – c’est là même leur raison d’être la plus profonde, – ce qui est vrai, mais passe à côté de l’intention essentielle du hadîth. C’est-à-dire que le sens littéral de la sentence, par sa violence même, représente une « guerre préventive » contre l’abus ultime de l’intelligence humaine, à savoir le naturalisme sous toutes ses formes : naturalisme artistique d’une part et naturalisme philosophique et scientiste d’autre part ; donc imitation exacte, extériorisante et « accidentalisante » des apparences, et recours à la seule logique, à la seule raison, coupée de ses racines. L’homme est homo sapiens et homo faber : il est un penseur et par là même aussi un producteur, un artisan, un artiste ; or, il est une phase finale de ces développements qui lui est interdite, – elle est préfigurée par le fruit défendu du Paradis, – une phase donc qu’il ne doit jamais atteindre, de même que l’homme peut se faire roi ou empereur mais non pas Dieu ; en anathématisant les créateurs d’images, le Prophète entend prévenir la subversion finale. Selon la conception musulmane, il n’y a qu’un seul péché qui mène au fond de l’enfer, – c’est-à-dire qui ne sera jamais pardonné , – et c’est le fait d’associer d’autres divinités au Dieu unique ; si l’Islam place les dits créateurs dans la géhenne, c’est qu’il semble assimiler fort paradoxalement les arts plastiques à ce même péché gravissime, et cette disproportion prouve précisément qu’il a en vu, non les arts dans leur état normal, – bien qu’il les interdise assurément, – mais la raison pour laquelle il les interdit ; à savoir la subversion naturaliste dont les arts plastiques sont, pour la sensibilité sémitique, les symboles et les préfigurations (1). Cet exemple, auquel nous nous sommes arrêté un peu longuement, peut montrer comment les formulations excessives peuvent véhiculer des intentions d’autant plus profondes, ce qui nous ramène une fois de plus au principe credo quia absurdum [je le crois parce que c'est absurde]. (1) En condamnant les images, l’Islam – bienheureusement « stérile » – refuse en même temps le « culturisme » qui est la plaie de l’Occident, à savoir les torrents de créations artistiques et littéraires, qui gonflent les âmes et distraient de la « seule chose nécessaire ».

The first step of good democracy is to choose a good leader, or more importantly, to not choose an animal as a leader - yet we made that ghastly mistake in 2016 by electing the most non-presidential creature on earth as the leader of our United States of America. There are good presidents, there are not so good presidents, but the unique problem with the president that we chose in the previous election was that it was not even a civilized human to begin with - it was an "it" not a he or she or they, and even after being handed over the very lives of the people that savage beast showed no sign of accountability whatsoever. Thus, we broke our democracy in 2016, but with sheer determination and conscientious persistence we have succeeded in fixing that mistake. Yes, I am filled with joy unspeakable to say out loud, that we have corrected our mistake and fixed the democracy into its usual imperfect but functional state. I say imperfect because democracy by nature is not perfect, but the problem we created last time was that we took things too far, and in the process turned a somewhat functional democracy into an absolutely dysfunctional one - in short, we broke it. And had the leader we chose been a smart one, that is, if that idiot had been not an idiot, but an actual cunning dictator, we wouldn't be celebrating our victory as a civilized people today, instead we would be mourning the burial of democracy. Fortunately, the insane ravings of a brainless, spineless and heartless maniac will no longer have to be considered as the statements originating from the sacred office of the President of the United States of America. We have fixed the broken democracy - yes - but the problems that existed before the maniac came to power still exist today. Therefore, we may cherish the restoration of our democracy as much as we want, the real work begins now. Choosing a proper human as a President doesn't magically make the problems of our nation disappear - those problems still exist - and they'll continue to give us chills time and again, unless we as a people stand accountable, both the government and the citizenry alike, and start working on those problems. Remember, the United States of America is not the responsibility of merely the President, the Vice President and their administration, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us whose veins carry the spirit of liberty and whose nerves carry the torrents of bravery. We have won the battle of making the White House human again, but the war has just begun - the war against systemic racism, against misogyny, against homophobia, against islamophobia, against gun violence, and against post-pandemic health and economic crisis. So, though we may celebrate the victory for a short while, we mustn't lose sight of the issues - we must now actually start working as one people - as the American people to heal the wounds on the soul of our land of liberty. It's time to once again start dreaming and working towards the impossible dream - the dream of freedom not oppression, the dream of assimilation not discrimination, and above all, the dream of ascension not descension. Never forget my friend, AMERICA means Affectionate, Merciful, Egalitarian, Responsible, Inclusive, Conscientious and Accepting.

It was a ready-made moment for an action-hungry president in which he could fulfill the role of consoler and moral leader. The moral high ground was clear, level, and open. It would be hard to find groups more in conflict with American ideals than white supremacists and neo-Nazis. President Trump, who is constantly alive to personal slights, might also have found it personally offensive that he was being used to support a racist cause. They had invoked his name in their putrid cause. "We are determined to take our country back," said David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, at the kickoff to the rally. "We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in, that's why we voted for Donald Trump. Because he said he's going to take our country back. And that's what we gotta do." ... "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides—on many sides," Trump said. ... This was not moral clarity, but moral flattening. The point the president chose to stress—repeating it for emphasis—was that the hatred and bigotry were displayed "on many sides." But the only bigots marching for an ideology of hate were the white supremacists. Anger stirred in opposition to them was not a reason for presidential condemnation, but elevation. The president, who has an uncommon ability to single out individuals and groups of people for abuse, did not mention the white supremacists at all in his remarks.

Jazz musician Miles Davis once said, “If somebody told me I had only one hour to live, I’d spend it choking a white man. I’d do it nice and slow.” bell hooks, a black professor of English at City College of New York who spells her name in lower case, once wrote, “I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder.” Demond Washington, a star athlete at Tallassee High School in Tallassee, Alabama, got in trouble for saying over the school intercom, “I hate white people and I’m going to kill them all!” Later he said he did not mean it. Someone who probably did mean it was Maurice Heath, who heads the Philadelphia chapter of the New Black Panther party. He once told a crowd, “I hate white people—all of them! . . . You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!” Another one who probably meant it is Dr. Kamau Kambon, black activist and former visiting professor of Africana Studies at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. In 2005, Prof. Kambon told a panel at Howard University Law School that “white people want to kill us,” and that “we have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.” In 2005, James “Jimi” Izrael, a black editorial assistant for the Lexington, Kentucky, Herald- Leader, was on a radio program to talk about Prof. Kambon. Another guest mentioned other blacks who have written about the fantasy of killing whites, and Mr. Izrael began to laugh. “Listen,” he said, “I’m laughing because if I had a dollar for every time I heard a black person [talking about] killing somebody white I’d be a millionaire.” For some, killing whites is not fantasy. Although the press was quiet about this aspect of the story, the two snipers who terrorized the Washington, DC, area in 2002 had a racial motive. Lee Malvo testified that his confederate, John Muhammad, was driven by hatred of America because of its “slavery, hypocrisy and foreign policy.” His plan was to kill six whites every day for 30 days. For a 179-day period in 1973 and 1974, a group of Black Muslim “Death Angels” kept the city of San Francisco in a panic as they killed scores of randomly-chosen “blue-eyed devils.” Some 71 deaths were eventually attributed to them. Four of an estimated 14 Death Angels were convicted of first-degree murder. Most Americans have never heard of what became known as the Zebra Killings. A 2005 analysis of crime victim surveys found that 45 percent of the violent crimes blacks committed were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanics. There was therefore slightly more black-on-white than black-on-black crime. When whites committed violence they chose black victims only 3 percent of the time. Violence by whites against blacks, such as the 1998 dragging death of James Byrd, is well reported, but racial murder by blacks is little publicized. For example, in Wilkinsburg, near Philadelphia, 39-year-old Ronald Taylor killed three men and wounded two others in a 2000 rampage, in which he targeted whites. At one point, he pushed a black woman out of his way, saying “Not you, sister. I’m not going to hurt any black people. I’m just out to kill all white people.

Did you ever hear of The Hero City? Of course. Great film, right? Marty made it over the course of the Siege. Just him, shooting on whatever medium he could get his hands on. What a masterpiece: the courage, the determination, the strength, dignity, kindness, and honor. It really makes you believe in the human race. It’s better than anything I’ve ever done. You should see it. I have. Which version? I’m sorry? Which version did you see? I wasn’t aware… That there were two? You need to do some homework, young man. Marty made both a wartime and postwar version of The Hero City. The version you saw, it was ninety minutes? I think. Did it show the dark side of the heroes in The Hero City? Did it show the violence and the betrayal, the cruelty, the depravity, the bottomless evil in some of those “heroes’” hearts? No, of course not. Why would it? That was our reality and it’s what drove so many people to get snuggled in bed, blow out their candles, and take their last breath. Marty chose, instead, to show the other side, the one that gets people out of bed the next morning, makes them scratch and scrape and fight for their lives because someone is telling them that they’re going to be okay. There’s a word for that kind of lie. Hope.

It’s a book. Iz would give me a book. I trace the aged leather, the letters pressed into the weathered cover. Montage of a Dream Deferred by Langston Hughes. I flip open the front cover, and my blood stands still in my veins when I note the date—1951—and the famous poet’s autograph. A signed first edition. I turn to the spot slotted by an index card, a crisp contrast to the worn, fragile pages. The poem is “Harlem,” and the familiar refrain asking what happens to a dream deferred stings tears in my eyes. I can’t ever read this poem without remembering the day my cousin died in the front yard. There are some moments in life that will always haunt us, no matter how many joys follow, and that day is one of those. I’ll never forget reciting this poem in my bedroom closet to keep Jade calm while one of her brothers shot the other. Iz couldn’t know its personal significance to me, but as I read the card, I understand why he chose it. GRIP, Our brothers live so long with dreams deferred, they forget how to imagine another life. For many of them, all they know is frustration, then rage, and for too many, the violence of finally exploding. You symbolize hope, and I know you take that responsibility seriously. I hope you know I believe that, and that nothing I’ve said led you to think otherwise. Bristol’s right—our biases are our weaknesses. Few are as patient as she is to give people time to become wiser. Thank her for me, for giving me time and for encouraging you to work with me. Together, I think we will restore the dreams of many. Merry Christmas, Iz