Home | About | Donate

Idiots of the World, Unite!


Idiots of the World, Unite!

Robert C. Koehler

“Sir, you are an idiot.”

Wow, an insult wrapped in such old-fashioned politeness. I let the words hover and reach, as I always do, for peace: that is to say, for clarity, connection, common humanity.


Once again, the FRAME of the white male dominator as prototype for all, a uniform one size fits all basis for conjecture is utilized:

"But there will always be more aggressors, and violent action is guaranteed to spur further violence from those who are not stopped. . . . Considering that the evidence for this is the very cycle of violence that has waxed and waned since the foundation of the world, the notion that ‘good’ violence can stop (rather than merely postpone or simply continue to fuel) ‘bad’ violence is the true naiveté.”

There is a RECORD of peaceful societies but contrary to today’s long-lasting patriarchies centered around God, the father, these were nature-based Goddess-mother centered societies. And war was NOT part of their culture nor were warriors granted homage, neither enormous sums devoted to developing always that next generation of lethal weaponry.

In all of the recent police violence, have any of those out-of-control macho robo-cops been female?


But ALWAYS Mr. Koehler STRAINS to make his frames gender-neutral and in HIDING the roots of the Partnership Society (as documented at length by Riane Eisler, Merlin Stone and others) he’s left inside the Catch-22 that insists that violence and aggression are inevitable.

So long as the masculine frame continues to subsume–and thereby negate the counterbalancing witness of its Feminine complement–no genuine alternative to the status quo that simulates what Mars built is possible.

A TRUE reckoning must return to the roots of the human being, and that being is purposely made in the image of a HE and a SHE… just as DNA is woven as a genetic balance drawn from BOTH creative sources.

When ONLY the male gets to call the shots, destruction overwhelms creation and all that IS creative.

Just a glance at the relative investments made in war/armaments/soldiering VERSUS the arts exposes the grave imbalance.

Healing begins with realigning both halves of Creation. Pretending all things male speak for both is a dangerous misogynistic illusion.


I wonder if you realize that the quotations in your second paragraph were authored by Lindsey Paris-Lopez and are simply quoted by Koehler.

Paris-Lopez, a woman, is a contributor to The Raven Foundation. If you follow the link, you’ll see some of her articles.



Dear Bob Koehler, again you make me cry - that you are willing to envision for us what is so right and true, healing and healthy as at least an image we may begin to pay more attention to - rather than the same old ‘same old’ , was it Augustine, back in the C.E. 300+some, who reminded us that “our hearts are restless till they rest in thee” - thee being TRUTH as I see it. Who gives the right to anyone to murder anyone else??? Yet nationally and now globally we seem not to pay attention to such a basic idea. Thank you again for your sincere efforts to pull us back to basic human concepts of ‘do unto others as you’d wish done unto you’. Your beautiful wisdom is sorely needed among people who seem to have lost the grasp of that simple “golden rule” - no matter the many strange excuses to avoid working to honor this old adage. Keep on keeping on with your
inspiring words and brave heart. Cheers! Love/peace, Elizabeth/ny


In the early 70s, when the British police carried no arms other than truncheon, my family and I were wandering around London’s theatre district. All of a sudden a man ran past us with a bobby hot on his heels. The bobby’s hat flew off but he kept going.

We never found out if he caught his man, or what the man had done, but the incident left a lasting impression. If that had been in New York, the chances are high that gunshots would have been exchanged, and any one of us could have been hit. Another difference is that the bobby was fit enough to give chase.

Killing a policeman has always been the worst crime you can commit in Britain, and the killer can expect to be hunted, found and prosecuted.

It is possible to police a country without resorting to firearms.


Here is part of the reply to Koehler: "Stephane Dujarric (speaking for the UN), added: “We need more support and more financial help. But, most importantly, we need political solutions.”

That “most importantly” is what Americans of all political extremes, right, left, and especially the apathetic non-voters, refuse to even consider. Happily assuming that “politics is the problem,” they force themselves and the rest of us into the tyranny of the most successful liars, thieves, and mobsters. Right now, in the US, that includes at the top of that violent hierarchy, Wall Street, Democrats, and Republicans. The latter two because they refuse to do anything besides competing to be the favored servants of public resources on behalf of Wall Street.

It is as though the voters and non-voters alike can only refuse to think at all or wish for magical solutions for specifically political challenges.

And Koehler is not alone in presuming that only men can fix what men have never proven able to fix since they first used arms to make themselves the supreme fixers: “How shall we arrange our power relations for the most salutary social health?” Men have, since taking up arms against women and children to rule them totally, simply assumed they know best. And the proof? They have the monopoly on violence.

Even some of us men can grasp this. Most prefer to ignore it, or hide behind empty platitudes like “that’s the way it has always been.” It has only been this way for the last 10,000 years or so.


A song, Hard Times in Old England, dating from the close of the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th c., has the verse [quote]You go into a shop and ask for a job / But they answer you only with head-shake and nod [of commiseration]. / It’s enough to make a man turn out and rob, / For it’s hard times in old England, in old England very hard times[/quote]

If we look around us, we see that nearly all violence is committed by, or on behalf of, individuals who believe they’re entitled to do it, or by people who can’t see any other way to get what they believe they need.

Those groups blur together at the edges, but even taken together they don’t begin to be a majority. Most people can get enough of what they need that they can get by, and they spend their time in other ways.

What that tells me is that people like Koehler are not “idiots” to think that violence can be nearly eradicated from everyday life.

If we flatten the wealth gradient so that everyone’s getting near enough an equal share of the wealth, revise how we socialise children to give them better tools for settling disputes, and box up the individuals who preferentially use violence to get more than their share or because they’re too disordered to live in community, we can have a world that’s as violence-free for everyone as it is for most of us in our everyday lives right now.


We have come a long way from those peaceful, goddess-worshiping societies. Jean Liedloff’s book, “The Continuum Concept” was a call and an inspiration to return to the basic wisdom of that type of society, and it spawned a revision of how we rear our children. But, like so many brave attempts at reform, it petered out, overwhelmed by the demands of a society bedeviled by progress. It’s hard to believe that in those peaceful societies even such “basic” realities in our society as sibling rivalry simply did not exist. All in all I think Koehler’s article has a lot of merit.


Which societies were these, then? I know of some ancient societies who worshipped the Earth Mother but they were also notoriously violent and warlike.


It is neccessary to note the chronological arming of America to understand why we have more weapons than the rest of the world combined and why we chose to do so. Before the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, America had only a hndful of weapons across the country made up of primarily some rusty old rifles left over for one of our past wars or the occassional hunter who spent one weekend a year shooting for some fowl. Less than 2 million of these guns were in the hands of average citizens then compared to over 300 million registered firearms today. The reason for the sudden rise in gun ownership was a direct response to the civil rights movemnt as gun manufacturers, right wing ideologues and every racist group in the country encouraged white folks to arm themselves to the teeth to protect themselves from the violent ‘black man’. It worked. People from evey walk of life suddenly felt compelled to own a gun for the first time in American history using the vague and outdated U.S. Constitution as their excuse to buy one.
Disarming a country though is far more difficult thatn arming one and now that the genie is out of the bottle, it seems that we have neither the political will or neccessary mind set to return to saner times. The result is that we live in the most violent country in the world with a murder rate higher than all of Asia combined and more American weapons than the rest of the planet. Over 30,000 Americans die from gunshots every year and mass murders are more common now than reruns of ‘Jeopardy’. How do we put the proverbial genie back in the bottle? How do we explain that the 300 million weapons purchased by concerned citizens actually makes our nation a more dangerous place to live in? How can we convince any police force to abandon their guns in a society where the average person has a firearm in ther glove compartment of their car or by their night table?
To solve this dilemma is a daunting task, but Robert is right that the issue must be addressed.


That’s really not at all true.

Until the National Firearms Act in 1934, nominally passed to disarm the bootleggers but actually to disarm the increasingly disaffected working class (that was the year Smedley blew the whistle on the fascist plan to use those working-class vets to commit a coup d’etat), there were no restrictions on firearm sales. You could buy all you liked from most big stores including Sears and Monkey Ward, including by mail from their catalogs. Even (*gasp*) Black people owned and carried.

We don’t because we can’t and it wouldn’t work if we did. The only way to stop the violence is to provide alternatives. If the only way someone can get money is to “turn out and rob”, not having a gun won’t matter. They’ll use a homemade sword, or walk into a store carrying a Molotov cocktail, or use some other tool to get what they need.

The only way they won’t is if they needn’t.


I was just intrigued by the heart-warming possibility there was once some human societies who didn’t end up bludgeoning to death or enslaving their neighbours inasmuch as I have a reasonably broad knowledge of human history and I can’t think of any.

Yet I am aware that societies or goups which worshipped the Mother Goddess could be equally warlike. An infamous example is the thuggees whose main historical legacy is to leave us the word ‘thug’ meaning someone particuarly pugnacious or brutal and yet who worshipped a Mother Goddess, Kali. So praying to mama didn’t mellow them folks down any.