georgephillip,
et al,
Well, the domestic issues of the 1960's had so many triggers and causes, we could write an encyclopedia size dissertation on it, and still not give it the justice due the topic. But the fear, that projected irrational government actions, were almost instilled in a way that is beyond anything we could justify today. Whether it be the racial barriers and prejudices of that time, the communist conspiracies and the threat of nuclear war, or the anti-war premise as a whole with revolutions everywhere you looked. And of course, there was the general counter-culture of the time and the never ending search for a idealistic utopia. America was having a nervous break-down, and we were lucky to get through it in one piece. And everyone thought they were on the right side of whatever issue was at the top of the heap on any given day.
(Even President Kennedy's principal advisors of the day were known as the "Whiz Kids." Today, part of that legacy period comes the JASONs; MITRE's answer, independent group of scientists that advise DOD and the government in general.)
Back then, nearly anything could be tagged as racist, and the conversation would be derailed, while the premise of the arguments were cleaned, screened, and sanitized.
I was attempting to link what I consider to be domestic terrorism like that practiced against King with its international counterparts like the blank check the US provides Israel in the Middle East. Mayhaps, I goofed?
Here's where I' coming from, Rocco:
Over half-a-century ago, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell wrote an open letter to the world pointing out a choice that was "stark and dreadful and inescapable" either mankind ends war or war ends humanity. That could be Natural Selection (upper division) saying that any specie that kills its young for money or glory is hardwired to self destruct as some crucial point in its evolution (like about the time its weapons begin leaving its planet's surface?) In this scenario, the dominant superpower would destroy itself and much of the rest of the planet, as well. Should such a narrative unfold, it seems like Israel is destined to play a leading role regardless of the existence of any god or gods.(or Moses for that matter.)
(COMMENT)
Ah, yes, the passage you cite comes from the Manifesto
(and is not the usual Einstein Letter many people ask about relative to the Jewish State), paragraph 10.
The key passage that couple with this is on how we think. Both Einstein and Russell were Nobel Laureate, and I'm convinced that part of the beauty of their work rests in the fact that they are blessed with a different way of thinking. It is what separates a Laureate from the rest of us. They have mental insight that we normal mortals have.
Para 5 said:
We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?
Both Russell-Einstein
(as well as the other 9 Nobel Laureates that signed the Resolution) were principally speaking to the issue of Nuclear Weapons and the military application in crisis. But the means by which we derive a solution, the "thinking," is applicable across the board.
The problem is, none of us will ever be a Russell or an Einstein. We simply can't mentally perform on that level, so we cannot see the probabilities and outcomes. If we could, there would have been an end to the Arab-Israel Conflict in 1948 when Einstein wrote his protest letter to the New York Times (
Einstein Letter Warning Of Zionist Facism In Israel)
Most Respectfully,
R