Home | About | Donate

Hair-Trigger Alert: On Bombs, Guns, and the Failure of America


Hair-Trigger Alert: On Bombs, Guns, and the Failure of America

Robert C. Koehler

I feel the finger on the trigger. I also feel it on the button.

“Dear President Obama,” the letter begins. It goes on to remind him of something he said in his 2008 presidential campaign: “Keeping nuclear weapons ready to launch on a moment’s notice is a dangerous relic of the Cold War. Such policies increase the risk of catastrophic accidents or miscalculation.”


co-creating a culture of peace

now, there's a goal worth working toward! gee, if the human species were to put as much time and effort into creating peace as it has wasted over centuries creating warrior culture, what might life on earth be like? what stands in the way of peaceful coexistence? this morning i watched some snips of the drama going on in the house of representatives. the speaker introduced barbara lee from california. she's the chairwoman of the congressional "peace and security" task force. i guess if we could all feel safe and secure from harm, then no one would need a weapon, right? fear is a basic universal emotion. fear can be a life saver or can cause a lot of erratic behavior and congress could pass millions of laws and cannot outlaw the fear emotion.

i do agree that the u.s. should be the first to disarm whether russia follows suit or not. after all, empire america claims to be the leader working for peace a democracy. unfortunately, this is not the home of the brave but the home of the easily frightened. those who would be peace-makers attempt to use logic against the warrior culture, but it's hard to debate logically against irrational fear.


The heart of the matter is to achieve a dynamic peace on an overpopulated, species extinguishing, resource depleting, environmentally polluted planet with massive resource inequality.

We are too smart to let natural controls like famine, drought, interspecies conflicts, disease, etc. control our populations. Bombs, guns and wars are a different way nature has found to achieve just that.


The irony is that is your statement is so true. 'Exceptional' - one of my favorite mind twister words in the late stages of empire - always resonates with its root: except. For example we are a fully integrated part of nature, except for the fact that a binary propensity in human 'thought' long ago posited that we are here and nature is somewhere else, waiting to be used by 'us'. When you begin to really tease apart the half-thinking the profile presents another root: schizophrenic premises that beget entire domino effects of more schizophrenic half-premises. A knock-on consequence seems to be jolts from breakdown of coherence in all of the arguments. Well, there's only one thing to do then... tsk, tsk, the broken mentation then triggers desires to apply violent force to break down any coherence that might emerge. At least that seems to be the dominant path being trucked and traveled these days.

Time to tend the red wiggler compost, greet the neighbors, breathe a deep sigh, do a bit more studying, converse a bit more and love the divine in all the folks whether part of me would love to send them packing or love to greet and invite into 'my' life.

'My life'- the more I think about it the more 'schizophrenic' it sounds. Time to meditate on the 'sunset'. Wait, wait, its not going 'down', its going around, I mean we're going around it, wait, ... Hey, what the heck... have a wonderful evening. Catch ya later in the threads...


Brilliant reply OG. It's like being on the anarchy sites on FB, which I no longer visit in protest to Zuckerberg's selling and giving out my personal info


I am allergic to the word anarchy but I do love healthy natural diversity and working to live into the unknown (99.9% of life when I think about it) in a way that is keeps as many options open as possible.


Comments like yours pretend that there's an equality of input that has never existed since the onset of patriarchal societies. These are hierarchical by nature and grant more power and privilege to those with money, and always those that are white and male.

In order to maintain hierarchies which by definition challenge the type of egalitarian society that would better promote and reflect Democracy, major armies are required.

Those willing to use brute force along with all sorts of carrots and sticks (the luxuries that belong to those at the top of the hierarchy) control the masses.

I'm reminding you of this basic societal design because so many traffic in a WE-frame which itself is completely deceptive.

As Riane Eisler brilliantly documents in her book, "The Chalice and the Blade," there WERE societies that were not based on war, competition, or conquest. They were matriarchal and based on the lineage of the Mother. They worshiped the Mother Goddess and viewed all lives as HOLY.

When woman's body and birth are regarded as holy, it is impossible to turn people into slaves, chattel, or refuge.

There is a reason why vile pornography (of the sort that DEFILES the female body) is so popular in war-based societies. The greater the distance between the macho male and his weapon from the tenderness of woman, the possibility of LOVE, the more natural it becomes to kill and destroy.

Although 90% of women have been programmed by patriarchy in culture, religious houses of worship, academia, and lately, even those who gravitate to the military... it remains true that women, when expressing what is natural to the Feminine Essence would NOT base societies on war and destruction.

Those who argue that the FEW women who have risen to high office within the systems of patriarchal capitalism somehow represent all women, and argue from that scant pool of evidence that "therefore women would govern just like men" are using a faulty sample to argue for the same sexist, misogynistic, hierarchical culture that breeds contempt, warfare, resource desecration, and the ills that have torn this world asunder.

IF societies truly valued the female side of the Divine equation to the extent that male expressions are valued; and if men and women were free to express both of these natural drives in EQUAL measure... a very different world would result.

And that world cries out to be born... anew... out of the ashes of so much fire, brimstone, and MIC-led mass murder.


Few within the Third Reich would not find merit in a post carrying this content.

It's chilling, barely human, and in no way in the slightest resonant with someone who'd call himself "nature boy." Why not Nuclear Arms Proponent?


In controlling the population of all species does nature exclude the human animal?
Does our species act much differently than others do?
What makes humans more fit than dinosaurs that lived millions of years longer on earth without destroying their habitat?
Does defining a problem make a person a participant in it?


Please stand gently corrected. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Zuma of South Africa are not white. The Zulu leader , Chaka, who created mayhem in Africa before we nasty whities used our muskets to our advantage, was not white. Ghengis Khan was not white. I have lived for a good part of my life in brown-skinned countries, and brown-skinned folk are no different from we nasty white males when it comes to power and brutality. Granted that women use their fists less than men, but the female tongue can be deadly. At one time in my life I had to talk down a bunch of 14 very angry brown-skinned young men from burning down the house of a family in their village and perhaps killing the family, for what was not an unsound reason in their culture. The hardest person to persuade that it was not the appropriate thing to do was a woman, who was constantly egging them on.

I will grant that we nasty white males can be utterly noxious; but we are not unique in that.


The argument you offer is that since human beings are an extension of nature, the weapons made by MEN = nature, or a component of the natural world.

That is a false delusional argument and since it is anti-life, it is anti-nature.

Second, you seem to take GLEE in the idea of population reduction. That outcome is something you hold in common with Eugenicists and the machine-man Bill Gates.

Often it's been thoroughly explained and documented that numbers are FAR less the issue than consumer demographics. An entire island nation can use less than a small U.S. township or 2 millionaires, for that matter.

Your argument is sinister and it reminds me of the mindset of Nazi.


Much in the way of bloody conflict, say in Rwanda was a product left over from previous European colonialism. The Europeans would prefer the lighter-skinned tribe and they left that poison seed behind.

It is true that wherever men take power they tend to abuse men perceived as less empowered and they treat women like chattel.

Still, the history of the world is largely the product of Anglo-European conquests. The Brits, after all, left their mark in China and India, while France and Portugal left their marks on Africa, and Spain brought its cruel "conversions to the crown" and a particularly brutal perception of Christianity to South and Central America. (Needless to say, this is a very bare outline.)

The point is, in all of those societies it was white males--of monetary means--who called the shots.

The Catholic Church still directly influences the lives of a billion people, and it's an entirely white male organization (with very rare exceptions).

There's an excellent 150 minute documentary on You Tube entitled, "Everything is a Rich Man's Trick" that explains how control by this ilk has shaped global politics, economics, culture, and history for centuries.

And because women and persons of color are largely left out of all decision-making bodies, my argument is valid. White Men control too much and they've made the world into their image and likeness: hence the emphasis on guns (phallic extension), killing (war), and competition (capitalism).

That is not the design that other groups would create. It's the design preferred by dominators who have no interest in genuine Democracy, the rules of fair play, supporting the flowering potential of all persons, respecting the Earth as our partner in Creation, and so much else.

Too many here are inured to the Feminist perspective. What is it? Do you think someone wants to cut off your balls?

P.S. This is not about a personality flaw, genius. It's about how power works within a patriarchal system. I don't think you have the slightest understanding of this pervasive influence.


i guess that depends on how one defines anarchy. i just copied this from webster's online.

Anarchy | Definition of Anarchy by Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of anarchy. 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

a: absence of government: to me that means lacking any hierarchical ruling class.
b: state of lawlessness: that's where the "fear" i alluded to in my earlier post comes into play. the assumption being that humans without a government to create laws and police to enforce those man-made laws would just run amok, killing, robbing and all sorts of mayhem! we cannot trust one another so we need authority figures to assure that humans won't fall to our basest instincts. (luckily we have a few fine "elites" whose baser instincts have been bred out of them) we are, after all, members of a social species which means if given the chance we'd prefer to cooperate for the well-being of our community.
c: a utopian society: personally i object to the word "utopian" as that presumes those who would involve in self-government expect a state of perfection. Nature exists in a constant state of change meaning any perfection is but a moment caught out of time. now you see it now you don't! like the "ode on a grecian urn" where two lovers' hands reach eternally toward one another yet can never touch.

ah, meditation! as an empirical i feel that's the best route to understanding the world about us. i think it was socrates who said "the man who knows others is wise; the man who knows himself is enlightened." long ago i read of fellow missouian, samuel clemens' ideas on meditation. he would sit with his back against a tree and feel the peace and serenity as he listened to the calming sounds of Nature. in time all seemed to disappear until there was only he, the tree and the Divine. after a while he and the tree disappeared leaving only the Divine.

"Good government is no substitute for self-government."--Will Rogers


"Good government is no substitute for self-government."--Will Rogers

Will Rodgers and Samuel Clemens - how many others are not taught in schools today? Even when I was in school the schism between civics and literature was already deep and dissociated.

I'd add Alfred North Whithead - 1929- "Process and Reality". And despite the scorn of Terrance McKenna by mainstream clutcher, I mean culture sales, he presented exceptionally well argued perspectives to challenge the lock-jaw of the 60s-90s. "The World and its Double" is on the net and, I would submit, worth the time listening.

'utopia' - taken from the on-line etymology dictionary:
utopia (n.) 1551, from Modern Latin Utopia, literally "nowhere," coined by Thomas More (and used as title of his book, 1516, about an imaginary island enjoying the utmost perfection in legal, social, and political systems), from Greek ou "not" + topos "place" (see topos). Extended to any perfect place by 1610s. Commonly, but incorrectly, taken as from Greek eu- "good" (see eu-) an error reinforced by the introduction of dystopia.

Greek ou "not" + topos "place" - 'not a place' in my mind is 'a state of mind' in which well being in harmony is reflexively/naturally/inherently prioritized and not the same as "nowhere", apropos of your observation of the fluidity of change. The more I think of the creation as being a novelty conserving dynamic, the more sense it makes.


You've written an interesting counter-counter-essay, but your assertion that

speaks directly to the original point. The greater the ability to "rain down terror from the sky," the less need there is to coerce actual soldiers into face-to-face combat. Thus drone warfare, whose warriors go home at night to family tables. Depersonalization of warfare is the greatest danger.


You made an excellent point to @Siouxrose11, but your claim that

is way overboard. Even your example of a woman "egging on" a mob gives her too much agency in the contemplated violence. A tongue is never as "deadly" as a fist or the power-multiplying weapons that are the subject of the OP.


Before we get too far off the excellent topic of the OP, I would cite a link to the UCS letter to Pres. Obama.

I would also add to Koehler's cogent observations of the product of our culture of fear and enmity a suggestion that it may be based in the myth of redemptive violence, which Christendom (yes, @Siouxrose11, patriarchal) has particularly fostered. As a Christian pacifist, I work very hard from the underside of that cultural crust to pull it down by discrediting that myth.


Chimps use clubs. A capuchin monkey pushes rocks on a jaguar from a cliff. Are they anti-life, anti-nature because they use weapons?

[/quote]Second, you seem to take GLEE in the idea of population reduction. That outcome is something you hold in common with Eugenicists and the machine-man Bill Gates.[/quote]

Nature controls populations of all species for diversity's sake. Why should the human animal be exempted? Are ecologists Eugenicists? Are astrologers scientists?

I assume you mean that humans are "spiritual" beings, exempted from nature's balance. Unfortunately, we missed our chance at peaceful Planned Parenting and there are now seven billion struggling humans in the world, made worse by tremendous resource inequality. Nature seems to be taking charge in her own cruel ways. Unless one is a psychopath, there is no GLEE in the resulting pain, suffering, death and destruction nature has forever dealt in achieving dynamic balance.

[/quote]Often it's been thoroughly explained and documented that numbers are FAR less the issue than consumer demographics. An entire island nation can use less than a small U.S. township or 2 millionaires, for that matter.[/quote]

Links to the science please.

[/quote]Your argument is sinister and it reminds me of the mindset of Nazi.

An astrologer like yourself may have a better connection to Hitler's mindset:


"woman egging on a mob". I was there; you weren't. End of story.


"Too many here are inured to the Feminist perspective. What is it? Do you think someone wants to cut off your balls?
P.S. This is not about a personality
flaw, genius. It's about how power works within a patriarchal system. I
don't think you have the slightest understanding of this pervasive

Oh dear me: earwigo again.Utterly irrational abusive argument beloved by femmo-nazis. See; I can be rude too!