When I watched high school students Emma Gonzalez and John
Hogg speak out against guns in America, truth was spoken in a manner I never heard before, not from one
politician or president (except maybe Eisenhower on the military-industrial
complex).
These young prophets—lucky to have survived the latest
murderous rampage in Parkland, Florida—have asked the crucial question. Addressing Trump and Congress, they
want to know: What do you value
more? Our lives or the money and
political support you gain from the N.R.A.? Our lives or a chauvinistic abstraction
called the “Second Amendment?”
One wonders how the fanatic gun lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre,
would react if his wife or one of his children were murdered by some maniac with
an AR-15? Would he still mechanically
repeat his mantra? “Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a
gun.” In short, hope resides in one place only—the hands of somebody
with a gun.
But I have a question for Wayne LaPierre: Sir, how many of
your intimate family circle and warmest friends are you prepared to sacrifice
for the sake of your version of the Second Amendment?
As far as I can see, there would be no limit. The seventeen recent sacrifices have
made no difference; LaPierre, like a block of stone, in no way is moved. Nor does
he care a whit that the U.S. has more guns and kills more of its own citizens
than other countries; nor the fact that the U.S. spends more on military
technology than all the advanced countries combined.
All this smells very bad. Why the fascination, the obsession with technologies that
specialize in producing corpses?
Why the absolute best machines for razing cities, incinerating
countrysides, killing and maiming human beings? The issue of America’s arms besotted culture has wide-ranging
significance. What is at stake is a
trend toward militarism taking the entire culture over. For details on this, read John W. Whitehead’s
Battlefield America.
Getting back to the near-death
experience in my title, the gun controversy is pivotal. The Trump-LaPierre axis of gun idolatry
would have us acquiesce to a new and alien idea of American life in which our
schools become militarized and kindergarten teachers are told to pack enough
heat to ward off berserk mass shooters armed with AR-15s.
This is not what most sane Americans want. The problem is that guns are so
entrenched in our culture that efforts to push back invariably fail. The system of sacrificial murder of
innocents remains triumphantly intact.
And yet, this time the energy, the eloquence, the
authenticity of the young anti-gun protesters have evoked responsive chords all
over the world One hears of plans
for rallies and mass demonstrations in Washington and elsewhere. The level of
arousal is enough to suggest the possibility of a movement coming to life.
But what kind of a movement? What America needs are not just
new gun laws but a new consciousness—a new respect for life. We need to think about what it means to
be a human being in the first place. Is the only way we can live to be armed to the hilt at
all times? Is the new civilization
to be based on mutual assured paranoia and destruction?
For those who resist the sick appeal of gun power, what’s at
stake is a revolution of attitude, a shift toward life- not death-affirming
values. J. Whitehead concludes that
one thing alone is necessary to dismantle the fascist war-machine the country
is becoming. It will have to begin
with how we treat each other: in ways conducive to peace or to war-mongering paranoia.
Each of us is a potential center for a revolution of peace. His advice: Begin there and radiate
outwardly into the environment.
We may agree on this in principle, but in real life people
change in big ways only under special, often extreme, circumstances. The Parkland
students illustrate this. They were
part of a horrific group near-death
experience in which seventeen of them lost their lives.
Truly, the thought of death
concentrates the mind, especially if you’ve experienced an armed maniac trying
to kill you.
People who have near-death encounters or who just intensely
fear imminent death often report life-transforming experiences. (On this, see my book, The Final Choice: Death or Enlightenment?) Something awakens them to a new
awareness of a deeper side of themselves and to the value of life in ways never
before understood. There is a grim but possibly promising idea in this.
With all the new ways that mortal danger may befall us in
our increasingly deadly times, one might predict an increase of psychically
transformative experiences. In
other words (and here is the grim part), various forms of near or actual
nuclear, climate, or civil catastrophe are clearly in the offing.
All of these will cause lots of death and lots of near
death. That means that lots of
people will be thrust into the near-death zone of consciousness, which could
turn out to be the high point of their lives—and collectively of the life of
our still primitive species. Many human beings will find themselves in a space
open to various super-memes of human potential—and thus contribute to forging a
more human, post-NRA society.
So, thanks to the hideous bungling of the lowest elements of
gun-toting humanity, we may in the end find ourselves driven, heroically and
against all odds, to recreate the conscience and the consciousness of our
race. But this is a tricky game to
play. For we must come very close to the
edge before our better angels fully awaken. The danger of course is that
getting that close we topple over
into the abyss.
No comments:
Post a Comment