Description

Ira Chernus, professor of religious studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, discusses his TomDispatch article “America’s New Vietnam in the Middle East: A Civil War Story About the Islamic State Might Spark a Peace Movement.”

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • The more I read about the concept of anarchy the more I am attracted to its tenants of voluntarism and non-aggression. That being said, some people are just dicks, and the heavy hand of the state can be very useful in dealing with such individuals. Let’s say a new neighbour moves next door. He buys the property outright and is free to do with it (and on it) as he chooses. Let’s say he chooses to play his music ridiculously loudly at all hours of the night. His music is keeping my kids up and proving to be a nuisance all around. I’ve tried reasoning with him but nothing will dissuade him from blaring his music as loudly as he wants on his property. Currently, I can call the cops and the problem will be solved (one way or another). What recourse would I have against this “noise pollution” in an anarchic society?

    Jump to Discussion Post 45 replies
  • Hey All, We will be having an #AntiwarHaiku contest this holiday season to show our support for peace and Antiwar.com. We will announce the full details and prizes on Monday the 16th and the contest will run until the 16th of December. An email address will be used for official entry but simply use the hashtag #AntiwarHaiku to have your entry seen and shared on twitter. Look for the full details on BitcoinNotBombs.com on Monday. Peace! ~Drew

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Hi Everyone, Antiwar.com has joined instagram and would like to encourage more pro peace memes. If you are a meme maker for peace and have some cool images to share, please post them here and we can add it to our photo stream. If your on instagram please show some love and follow along. ~Drew https://instagram.com/antiwarcom/

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Vince Poscente wrote a book, “The Ant and the Elephant,” a parable with the ant representing the conscious mind, and the elephant representing the unconscious mind. The obvious implication and preponderance of evidence is that the unconscious mind is in control, and the ant (conscious mind) takes us wherever the elephant (the unconscious mind) wants to go. I, personally, see myself doing behaviors that I would consciously prefer I not do. I work on programming the unconscious mind. I also look toward the behaviors of animals for clues to my own and other people’s behavior. For instance, I walk 2 dogs. One dog is big, pulls me along where HE wants to go. (He needs better training, I know.) But, in the end, he is the most loving animal Soul I know. He is, true to his nature, a male dog, marking his territory. At the same time, I know he adores me and would stand between me and any danger. The other dog is a small, but dominate female. She is a biter, so I handle with care. She appears to see the world as a hostile environment, and will take on any dog that threatens her dominance, no matter the size. I see counterparts of both animals in human behavior. What do you think, is the ant or the elephant in charge? Do people, like animals have different personality makeups that make them either peaceful lovers or competitive dominators? Whatever our nature, how do we learn to all get along together?  

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” http://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply