Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER: War, like disease and death, is a tragic component of the fabric of life. Ironically, war is related to our will to live because whenever life is threatened, it struggles to destroy that which endangers it. Man's willingness to wage war thus can be seen as an expression of his reverence for life. This is why the concept of the just war has been a tantalizing problem for those who have tried to solve the riddle of the human condition.

However, it is easier to equate war and life abstractly than concretely. War never begins because of our reverence for life but rather as a consequence of our cruelty and will to power. War, suffering, and death fulfill certain psychic functions for those who inflict them. They have a symbolic and a religious significance. Although we cannot explain why, the fact is that the suffering and death of someone whom we define as our enemy is a pleasant experience.

The destruction of the enemy has for nations the same ritual function that torture has for the torturer. The suffering of the defeated is the counterpart part of the liturgies of victory. Without the humiliated presence of the enemy, either actual or possible, our martial hymns and parades, flags and worship of heroes would be meaningless. Our cruelty has to do with our will to power, and our will to power is a result of our fear of death.

Individuals and nations are destined to die. We all know this. Every human society is in the last resort-- men banded together in face of death. How can I accept calmly the fact of my inevitable annihilation? I cannot. However, if by its unlimited power, my nation is destined to eternity. And if I become united with and absorbed by my nation, death apparently loses its final character. I merge myself with a reality which endures forever. Nations thus become gods, the object of our ultimate concern and loyalty.

This is why we are always ready to justify the deadly expansion of our state. Its display of power acquires a sacramental function. It tell us about our own eternity and omnipotence. It seems that there is no way of avoiding the horrible conclusion. Since cruelty and war play such vital psychic functions, we will be unable to create peace. We are entrapped in an irrational original sin and possessed by a radical evil, and we don't know how nor do we want to free ourselves from this condition. Peace seems to be an impossible dream.

However, the fact is that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached for the impossible. See what we did with disease and suffering? Health and happiness, like peace, are also impossible dreams. In this case, however, the impossible dream was the god which forced men to try the possible reach. From magic to science, mankind has been endlessly involved in a struggle against disease and suffering. And what are the results? We live longer. We suffer less. Nature has become more human and friendly.

The irony of our condition is that we did not do anything similar with our visions of the impossible peace. Not satisfied with the war-producing tensions which belong to the human condition, we exacerbated and improved them. The disease of our inborn cruelty and of our war impulses was elevated to the status of art, of virtue, of science, and of institutions. We used our intelligence to eliminate disease. In the case of war, however, our entire ingenuity was used to transform it from the condition of human tragedy to the status of demonic necessity. We invented war-producing institutions.

Indeed, the institutions that claim to be the protectors of peace are in reality the creators of war. This strange contradiction should not surprise anyone who knows about the ways institutions function. Institutions are created in order to solve certain problems. But once firmly organized, the solution of the problem becomes secondary, and the self-perpetuation of the institution becomes the first priority. I will give you a simple example.

Suppose that by a miracle disease cease to exist, what would happen to doctors, hospitals, and the drug industry? They would have no functions to perform, and they would disappear. If they were to continue in operation, they would have to find ways either of convincing people that sickness is about to return or of actually producing disease. This is a contradiction which is built in the very core of institutions. The precondition for their perpetuation is the continuation and aggravation of the very problem which they claim is their purpose to solve.

The alleged function of the military establishment is to solve the problem of war. The social reality, however, is that the continuation of war is the precondition for the survival and growth of the military establishment. It is at this level that the problem of war has to be dealt with. And my thesis, however romantic and utopian it may sound, can be thus stated. Unless we put a halt to the expansion of the military establishment, unless we abandon our obsession for security, there is no hope of peace.

[APPLAUSE]

The military power of the wealthy nations of the world is so massive that it has no precedent in the history of civilization. It is not by accident that money and the sword are always found together. The science and technology of death are possible only when there is a growing economy to support them. The expansion of the war-producing institutions is directly related to affluence. And conversely, war is good business. The symbiotic combination of military institutions and economy and economic growth is what accounts for today's fantastic accumulation of power by the war-producing institutions. This power has become dominant in all sectors of our civilization.

The military establishment maintains a monopoly of information. We no longer have the right to know what is going on. Information is an act of grace and condescension on the part of the military elites. The will to know about the future, about the issues which have to do with our life and death has become a crime, an act of treason. Our worldview is thus controlled, and the emergence of different definitions of reality is prevented. Critical thought, the very foundation of freedom, is made impossible.

The war-producing institutions have also managed to put science at their service. War-making could never have attained the satanic dimensions it has today if it were not for science. The modern military professional has almost no semblance to his ancestors. His significant others are not the common soldiers. They count very little but rather physicists, chemists, biophysicists, sociologists, psychologists, systems analysts. The sophistication of the science of killing, the complexity of the situations, the rapidity of the decisions, all these elements have nothing to do with the natural inevitability of war. They are a social product, creations of our military establishments, expressions of our science and proved cruelty. This state of affairs means that democracy is dead.

Military liturgies are requiems to a dead dream. Democracy was an ideal which depended on a confidence in the common individual. It knew that whenever power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it becomes tyranny and oppression. Power, therefore, must be related to the will of the people. Democracy knows that life creates order, but order does not create life. Social order, thus, must not be imposed from above. It has to grow out of life itself. Could we realistically say that today society makes any room for the realization of this dream? Obviously not. There are very few things which we are still allowed to decide, maybe the color to paint our house, the food we are going to eat, or where we will spend our weekend.

However, when the problem of the organization of our space and our time is brought up, we are reduced to silence. The noninitiated, the nonprofessional of the science of killing have nothing to say. Our values and aspirations don't matter at all. We may deceive ourselves saying that we live in a pluralistic world where there is freedom for everyone to support whatever values one wishes. Yes, we are given freedom to have within ourselves the values we cherish not because our society has become freer, but because these values make no difference in the world outside. What a strange bargain.

We were given freedom within at the price of abandoning the world outside to the power elites. Thus, whenever the values of the people begin to pose a threat to the status quo, the military step in overtly in order to preserve democracy. Coup d'etat succeed one after another. These are not abnormal incidents in a period of transition. They are the natural expression of the military logic and of military power in our world.

Thus, if you want to understand the spirit of our times, we must forget all the humanistic creeds that are prepared and signed by nations and international organizations. Even the economic systems make little difference. Behind capitalism and communism, we find a common denominator, the operations of the military establishments. When our nations speak about peace, it is the voice and logic of the professional of war which is heard.

And finally, we must not forget the cosmic dimension of military power today. Once, long time ago, war was a crime against one generation. It was violence against a certain region of the Earth. It was nothing more than an ephemeral explosion of insanity. Life would triumph over death, like the phoenix, and would recreate itself out of the very ashes of war. The next generation would start all over again. Homes would be rebuilt. Wounds would be healed. And the Earth would bring forth its fruit again. This is no longer the case.

Thanks to the science and technology, the next war will be the final crime against life. Mankind won't be given another chance. The crime against men has turned out to be the ultimate act of revolt against creation and against God. These are the simple facts with which we have to cope. The wealthiest and most enlightened nations of the world have created the most powerful and the most insane order ever known for universal destruction and death and not for peace and life. Our civilization is possessed by demons it cannot control. Madness has become embodied in our social order.

Why is this state of affairs imposed upon us by brute force? In part, yes. But this is not the whole truth. We accepted the rule of the military because we believe the metaphysics of war that they preach. As Augustine once suggested, we distrust the power of love. We only believe in the love of power. In other words, the effects of power which are objectively established in our world are nothing more than the embodiment of a metaphysical religious world view which is structured around the ultimate value of power and violence.

What are the symbols which make up this ideology? First, the myth of the enemy. It is true that human beings tend to be cruel. And it would be irresponsible to behave as if it were not so. But it is also true that most of our enemies are myths, the pathological creation of minds dominated by fear and the will to power. Inquisitors in the Middle Ages burned witches. Everyone knows that. Few people realize, however, that witches were created by certain institutional and psychological mechanisms then in operation. We no longer believe in witches. But the same mechanisms are still in operation, which is where scapegoats. The enemy is a scapegoat also.

Why do we need to create scapegoats? Whenever a society is being corroded by an internal crisis, a tremendous amount of anxiety is produced. In anxiety, we feel threatened, but we are unable to see where the danger is. Why is it that we do not see the causes of our anxiety? Because it's better not to see. If the roots of the crisis are internal, if chaos springs from within, it becomes obvious that the institutional arrangements which constitute one's nation are inadequate. But if this is the case, one's nation cannot be destined to eternity. And this is too painful to be accepted.

One must not smell the odor of the putrefaction of one's God. But there is a way out, the scapegoat. Look, there he is, the devil which is killing our God. When an institutional order manages to create the myth of the scapegoat, people become incapable of seeing the real roots of their anxiety. They are led to believe that the problem is not within but outside. And everybody joins hands and hearts in the ultimate task of destroying the enemy. The dominant power structures regain the grounds of their legitimation. More power has to be given to the military. Greater violence becomes emotionally needed. The scapegoat has to be crucified.

Second, the myth that our nation is the embodiment of truth and justice and that whatever lies beyond the limits of its sphere of influence is evil. The vision of the world into two camps is not peculiar to our historical moment. Regardless of his culture, man has always identified his social order with the divine and whatever lies beyond its limits with chaos and the demonic. When one believes that God dwells in Washington-- I don't believe that anybody believes that anymore.

[LAUGHTER]

Anyway--

[LAUGHTER]

When one believes that God dwells in Washington and the devil in Moscow or vice versa, one is simply re-enacting a very old script. It would be expected however that the enlightened men of today would have developed ways of freeing themselves from this repetitive compulsive behavior. However, in spite of all the insights that are available from psychoanalysis to social theory, from our historical experience to our religious traditions, we continue to define world reality on the basis of our presumption and self-righteousness.

We assume that humanity, love, and responsibility are our monopoly. We assume that the other cannot be trusted. And once we indulge in these illusions, we inevitably fall prey of those messianic obsessions which require and justify the use of violence. Our madness requires that new victims be offered to our will to power.

Third, once this worldview is accepted, it follows naturally that all transcendent moral points of reference are dissolved. If my nation alone combines power and justice, whatever is done for the extension of its power over the world is morally, morally necessary. My nation is not subordinated to any moral rule. On the contrary, its victory is the only criterion of morality.

When men act in the name of their nation, writes Wright Mills, they don't know any moral limits but only calculation and expediency. The worship of the nation turns cruelty and lies into patriotic virtues. This is why Nietzsche calls this state the new idol, the cold monster, the lyre which will give you everything if you will adore it. Maybe this is the reason why there is never a place for prophets in the shrine where national heroes are revered.

And finally, if the enemy is evil, and only my nation is good, the only acceptable peace is the one which is achieved through our victory. It's not enough that the state establishes the monopoly of violence over its territory. The whole world has to accept its domination. One has therefore to be stronger than the enemy. The enemy, following the same logic, arrives at the same conclusion. This is the rationale which makes the arms race inevitable in our civilization. The arms race is implicit and required by the metaphysics of war.

These are the basic articles of faith of the metaphysics of war. In the Middle Ages, whoever did not believe in the existence of witches was suspected of witchcraft. Today, likewise, whoever does not say amen to the metaphysics of war is suspected of treason. This is the reason why beyond certain doors in our military institutions, only the most orthodox fundamentalists are allowed, that is, those who maintain the divine origin of the military ideology. The ultimate decisions about our life and death, death thus belong to a self-appointed elite which thinks and behaves under the bewitchment of its fears, myths, and will to power.

This logic is insane, and its insanity becomes obvious once we begin to probe its implications. The will to death is one of the basic motives of the metaphysics of war. As one of its representatives once put it, quote, "I am confident that the majority of the American people would passionately reject ignominious defeatism and instead proclaim rather dead than red," end of quote. If a nation voluntarily comes to the conclusion that it prefers death to tyranny, then it might be that the only option ahead is collective suicide. I would respect immensely a community which makes this decision.

I would look at it with the same reverence with which I look at an individual who brought his own life to an end. What an enormous amount of suffering lies behind this irreversible decision. It may very well be that life becomes so unbearable that death and not life is the easier path to follow. Very often however, the will to die goes together with the will to kill.

How many have killed wife and husband, children and friends before bringing their own life to an end? Our reverence now becomes horror. Why? If life has ceased to be meaningful to one, do others have to be killed? This is insane and demonic. And this is what the metaphysics of war is all about. The logic of retaliation means that I refuse to die alone. The enemy may destroy me, but I will prove my superior power even as I die by destroying the whole world.

Who are we? Hostages on a planet which is being hijacked by mad pirates. They are so many. And whenever the planet follows a course they do not like, they put their fingers on the buttons which will destroy all of us together.

Let us imagine that the enemy is going to destroy you. He has pressed the buttons, and the rockets are on their way. Your death is inevitable. What will you do? Will you push the buttons? Suppose that you say yes, is not this the decision of a mad person? We won't be in any way better than snakes and scorpions. What will you accomplish? Whom will you destroy? The enemy, yes, but elderly people and children, pregnant women and lovers, butterflies and flowers also. Your crime will not be against your foe but against the future, against creation, against life, against God.

Would it not be much nobler to die alone? The future generations, those who survived the victory and downfall of your enemy-- because victors always die-- would remember you in gratitude and reverence. They died defenseless in order that we could live. Suppose that your reverence for life is stronger than the logic of retaliation, and you would refuse to press the buttons, then why do you make buttons?

[LAUGHTER]

Is not this all insanity and madness? The metaphysics of war is based on the belief that peace will be possible only through victory. But victory is no longer possible. Victory and death are two sides of the same reality. The military logic which says either victory or death is in reality opting for victory and death. What a strange logic. Life in all its forms silently says it's better to live even if defeated than to be victorious and dead.

For what is the purpose of victory? Is it not to allow life to go on when victory becomes more important than life? Then a demonic perversion has taken place. Suppose that nature had given us by mistake an organ of defense, which if ever used, would cause our death. What would we do? We would rather run than fight or better still, we would go to a surgeon to have our organ of defense amputated. If the purpose of defense is life, and if what kills us is not the enemy but rather the very act of defense, the inevitable conclusion is life is better served if we are defenseless.

In defeat, life can be preserved. And where there is life, there is hope also-- maybe not for my generation, but for our children and grandchildren. A live dog is better than a dead lion, says the Old Testament philosophy. A victorious dead nation will have no one to bury its dead, no one to sing songs to its greatness. It will lie on the surface of the Earth for putrefaction, the vultures, and oblivion. The logic of victory is the logic of death. If we want to survive, we must become defenseless.

Am I saying nonsense? Maybe. But I am simply repeating something which was said almost 2,000 years ago, words that nobody takes seriously. Whoever saves his life will lose it. I know that many apparently solid arguments could be brought up to prove that my way of thinking rather than that of the military metaphysics is insane. The common logic of our daily behavior says that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We should not abandon something that we already have for something problematic.

In our apocalyptic times, however, this way of thinking is like saying that it's better to have a scorpion in our hands and a snake around our necks than to be naked. Our obsession with defense is more mortal than the weapons of the enemy. The only realistic military criterion today is that war and not the enemy is the enemy. The old wisdom that the path bequeathed us said that if you want peace, get ready for war. Today, a new wisdom is needed. If you do not want war, destroy your weapons.

To put a halt in the arms race, to stop the expansion of the military establishment, to say a radical no to the metaphysics of war, this might sound like a utopian dream, I agree. But I affirm that we must accept the utopian position, first of all, because it is today the only possible way of thinking about politics and the human condition and second, because it is the only realistic way of seriously working for peace today.

What the powerful call utopian is actually the condition for human survival. How would I express this dream? I found it in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most misunderstood men of modern times. And perhaps the great day will come when a people distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of a military order and intelligence and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifice for these things, we will exclaim of its own free will.

We break the sword and really smash its entire military establishment down to its lowest foundations, rendering oneself unarmed. When one had been the best armed out of a height of feeling, that is the means to real peace which must always rest on a peace of mind whereas the so-called armed peace as it now exists in all countries is the absence of peace of mind. One trust neither oneself nor one's neighbor in half from hatred, half from fear does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and perish and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and fear, this must someday become the highest maxim for every single Commonwealth, too. Thank you very much.

[APPLAUSE]