i have assigned the first chapter of albert camus's the rebel (l'homme revolte - though that sounds like "the revolting man" in english) as compulsory reading for sophomore students in the "communication and politics" class. the chapter asks the crucial question "who is a rebel?" and gives the essential answer: someone who says no... the rest of the long essay argues that it is what a man says yes to that determines the nature of rebellion and the definition of rebel, basically pirouetting around the idea that the rebel is one who says no and that's it!
i came accross a few do-gooder, bleeding heart declarations over the weekend, part of the inescapable, involuntarily encountered junk-info flux. one about abuse of women and children said a (thankfully, not the at least) root cause of family violence was poverty, ignorance and the assorted aetiologia and urged that these social ills be remedied. wow! what an insight!
they could be repeating that illuminative diagnosis till every wife & child is bled to death by demonic males...
violence is very satisfactory and often productive (instrumental) for the powerful. that functionality makes it desirable in addition to the psychological and psychopathological perks it offers.
well, awright (arwight, if you're a ner yowkew), we say nay to violence, we're rebels.
come and stop it with truckloads of academic cloaca bovinus... or say what you say yeah to.
stupidity cannot stop violence but violence can stop stupidity - although they often run synomymously parallel courses.