I see this as the central issue of our time: how to find a substitute for war in human ingenuity, imagination, courage, sacrifice, patience...War is not inevitable, however persistent it is, however long a history it has in human affairs. It does not come out of some instinctive human need. It is manufactured by political leaders, who then must make a tremendous effort--by enticement, by propaganda, by coercion--to mobilize a normally reluctant population to go to war.

American capitalism needed international rivalry - and periodic war - to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor, supplanting the genuine community of interest among to poor that showed itself in sporadic movements.

Against the claims of a violent "human nature" there is enormous historical evidence that people, when free of a manufactured nationalist or religious hysteria, are more inclined to be compassionate than cruel. When citizens have an opportunity to learn of vicious acts committed by their own governments, they react with indignation and protest.So long as atrocities remain remote, abstract, they will be tolerated, even by decent people.

When guns boom, the arts die.

So long as atrocities remain remote, abstract, they will be tolerated, even by decent people.

In January 1943, there appeared in a Negro newspaper this "Draftee's Prayer":Dear Lord, todayI go to war:To fight, to die, Tell me what for?Dear Lord, I'll fight, I do not fear, Germans or Japs;My fears are here.America!

And always, as a way of drowning class resentment in a flood of slogans for national unity, there was patriotism.

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.

How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?