My Thoughts are Murder to the State

December 5, 2011Ric Hudgens

Post image for My Thoughts are Murder to the State

On July 4, 1845 Thoreau moved to Walden Pond and remained there for the next two years.  The year before he had returned to his family home in Concord, Massachusetts to work in the Thoreau pencil factory.  He dreamed of buying or leasing a farm where he could support himself and pursue his writing.  In the spring of 1845 his friend Ellery Channing had told Thoreau that he should immediately build a hut for himself somewhere.

So he did. The book that famously resulted from Thoreau’s sojourn in the woods is often interpreted as the eccentric work of an isolated hermit and social misfit. It is true that Thoreau’s solitary life and writing did occupy much of his time.  In 1846 he would complete and publish his first book A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Riverswhich described an 1839 hiking trip with his brother Charles.  But during Thoreau’s two years at Walden Pond he was also immersed in the abolition movement.  By day Thoreau sheltered runaway slaves in his small cabin and at night saw them safely on their way further north.

Soon after his return to Concord the local collector came to garner six years of unpaid taxes.  Thoreau was not opposed to the payment of debts, however he looked upon the imposition of a poll tax by a government that supported both slavery and the Mexican-American war to be against his conscience.  He refused to pay.

Three weeks after his arrival at Walden Pond (and two weeks after his twenty-eighth birthday) Thoreau was arrested and put in the Concord jail.  The legend goes that his mentor and friend Ralph Waldo Emerson arrived to visit him and asked, “Henry, what are you doing in there?” to which Thoreau responded to Emerson, “What are you doing out there?”.

Even though Emerson was also opposed to slavery and to the War he was appalled by Thoreau’s actions. Emerson felt the situation did not demand the extremes of civil disobedience that Thoreau was advocating.  Emerson had much more trust in the political process and little sympathy for Thoreau’s anarchism.

However, Emerson was not adverse to the appeal of radical activism.  He did not flinch when the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison publicly burned a copy of the U S Constitution declaring it to be a pro-slavery document.  Emerson welcomed prominent abolitionists to his home on a regular basis.  And only a few years later he would collect funds to buy rifles for John Brown.

The difference between Emerson and Thoreau at this point in time reflected their differing takes on the nature of the political crisis.  Emerson still had hope that slavery could be abolished through due process and without a civil war.  Thoreau thought, in agreement with the abolitionists, that the State was hopelessly compromised by its ongoing complicity with evil.

One year after Thoreau’s departure from Walden Pond, while he was immersed in revising Walden, he penned his famous lecture and essay on “Resistance to Civil Government”.  It was of course inspired by his time in jail, but also informed by an 1831 poem of Percy Byshe Shelley entitled “The Mask of Anarchy”1 where Shelley wrote:

Stand ye calm and resolute,
Like a forest close and mute,
With folded arms and looks which are
Weapons of unvanquished war.And if then the tyrants dare,
Let them ride among you there,
Slash, and stab, and maim and hew,
What they like, that let them do.With folded arms and steady eyes,
And little fear, and less surprise
Look upon them as they slay
Till their rage has died away

Then they will return with shame
To the place from which they came,
And the blood thus shed will speak
In hot blushes on their cheek.

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many — they are few.

Thoreau wrote in Civil Disobedience that “if a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.” And then a few years later, in 1854 on the eve of publishing Walden. Thoreau wrote in his journal:  “My thoughts are murder to the state.”

I think of Thoreau during these days of resistance.  As in his day there is diversity among those of us united in our outrage at the injustice, existent evil, and imminent evil all around us.  Some of this diversity reflects differing readings of the Bible or differing forms of Christian spirituality that either encourage or discourage public engagement.  Some springs from differing dispositions on the efficacy of political activism. Even our small circle of Christians gathered around the concerns of “anarchism” often finds itself at odds about what implications the black flag entails for Christian discipleship.

The abolitionists of Thoreau’s day were one part of a larger reform movement that included activism on women’s suffrage, temperance, animal rights, “free love”, and communalism.  The period from 1830-1860 was a yeasty time in American history in which the rise of capitalism, increased immigrant labor, the expansion of western markets, and political gridlock sparked increasing social ferment, unrest and opposition.

As perhaps the most radical of these reform movements, the abolitionists disavowed any appeal to process, appeasement, or compromise.  In spite of the need to address many issues of injustice they remained focused on one.  Understanding the systemic evil of a national (not just regional) economy based upon slavery, they insisted upon attacking this evil at its core.  They asserted that slavery must be abolished. Period.  Fugitive slaves must be protected and assisted. Commercial products dependent upon slavery (cotton, tobacco, sugar) must be boycotted.  The spread of this virulent practice should be oppposed by any means necessary.

We of course know that the actions and reactions around this issue would eventually culminate in a horrible civil war that would cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and permanently change the direction of United States history.

Some would question whether the systemic injustices of our day equate with those of one hundred and fifty years ago.  Others would assert that our dilemma is if anything even more perilous and fraught with danger.

Whether we are committed to a Christian discipleship focused around the individual imitation of the historical Jesus, the missionary call of Matthew 28, the social activism of Luke 4, the communalism of Acts 2, or the apocalyptic hope of Revelation, I believe we must all seek to find the one place, the one issue, the one firm grip we can grasp upon our own responsibility and calling in this time.  We have always understood that our spiritual lives are caught up in a divine drama far beyond our own understanding or ability to articulate.  What we perhaps have yet to perceive is that our political and social lives are also engaged with a drama (perhaps just as divine) that extends beyond the horizon of any one point of view.

Radical times call for radical commitments.  Those commitments must be rooted not just in those times, but (as Thoreau would write) in the “eternities”.  And yet, those commitments must connect with our times in ways that are vital and efficacious. Our actions must have bite.  Finding the tender spots of the empire may not be as self-evident as it was in Thoreau’s day.  But often the reactions of the principalities and powers give some indication of when we are getting close.  Christian radicals should never be condemned as the toothless dogs of complacency and cynicism.  Eventually we have to show some teeth.

Image Credit: “Portrait of Thoreau” by Tink (TinkMakesArt.com)

  1. Shelley wrote the Mask of Anarchy in 1819 following a British massacre at Peterloo in which the British army charged into a crowd of protesters killing 15 and injuring 650. The poem was not published during Shelley’s lifetime. It is perhaps the first modern statement of the principle of nonviolent resistance.
  • Anonymous

    It seems to me that the thoughts of Thoreau as presented in the article are not in accordance with Jesus teachings or with the spirit of peaceful resistance along the lines of Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Neither Jesus nor Gandhi or Mr King had problems with the existence of the State per se. They never called for the abolition of the state. They resisted evils that were evident in their own times but did not call for the dismantlement of the state. They did not have issues in paying taxes like Thoreau seemed to have.

    I think the title and the ending of this article tries to provoke people in a negative way. This in particular is quite alarming: “Christian radicals should never be condemned as the toothless dogs of complacency and cynicism. Eventually we have to show some teeth”. It is hard to read people comparing themselves to dogs that must find “tender spots” to bite.

    In the middle of the article Emerson is described as approving of the burning of the Constitution. This is also inflammatory and has nothing to do with Christ (I’m repeating myself).

    Activism for “free love”? In my book Love is always free. And in regard to slavery Abraham Lincoln did what he had to do as PRESIDENT. Why would you be against the State that such a great president presided over?

    In summary, Thoreau was not a Christian, thus why try to model our thoughts after his?

    • Mewithoutyou121

      Because he advocated for nonviolent solutions to a more peaceful society? Isn’t that what Jesus would want?

    • Anonymous

      Mi_Fe you do realize this is a christian anarchist site? As in people against the state. I think you may need to brush up on your history, Gandhi and MLK were both influenced by Thoreau. Gandhi also organized the Salt March (resistance against tax), and I say this just for clarification not because I like him at all. Christ was put on the cross for inflammatory speech and actions against the political and religious institutions of his time. I don’t feel like explaining “free love”, maybe Brandon could do that…

      Abraham Lincoln was a terrible person, didn’t care about freeing the slaves except for his political career and was a soldier for the US who was a part of native american massacres. Also all anarchist radicals from the states are pretty toothless now, so let’s step it up.

      • Mi_Fe

        Agree on everything except on Lincoln. And about Christ… well I believe it he was put to the cross for more than what you state.

        • http://twitter.com/thejoeturner Joe Turner

          Yes.. but how can you agree? HomelessDrew (and I below) have put to you a case that is the opposite of what you said it was. You can’t both say that Gandhi ‘had no issues with tax’ and then say oh yes, the Salt March was about tax. You can’t say that Gandhi had no issues with the State and then agree that he had an issue with the State. The statements are mutually exclusive, they can’t both be right.

          • Anonymous

            I agree I made a mistake in making my initial argument. And thus I give in to your reasoning and to your knowledge of Gandhi.

    • http://twitter.com/thejoeturner Joe Turner

      I don’t understand your last sentence given you seem to cite (glowingly) Gandhi – who wasn’t a Christian.

      But generally speaking, I think your interpretation of Gandhi is just wrong. As an upper caste Indian and British educated Indian, he could have decided to attempt to bring change by talking nicely to the Raj. In the sense that the British were the authority ruling India, Gandhi certainly had a problem with the state per se (sic). Unlike other independence movements of his time, Gandhi was not prepared to sit around and wait. He wanted the British to leave India, preferably right now. And to say that he had no problem with paying tax ignores the salt march, which was all about tax!

      I know less about MLK, but suspect your analysis is flawed there as well.

      • Mi_Fe

        Agree.

  • http://RichGriese.NET Rich Griese

    I am not interested in the supernaturalism of Christianity, but am very interested in the study of the early history of the group. I am always happy to talk to others that are also interested in this topic. My interest specifically is up till perhaps a generation or two after Irenaeus. But I would say I am interested in anything from the Maccabean revolt up till about 384CE when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire.

    Cheers! richgriese.net/religion

  • Anonymous

    The only means Jesus advocated for a more peaceful society was the conversion of the hearts, of individual hearts. He did not advocate anyother means.

    Also there is nothing non-violent about being like a dog with teeth to bite the soft spot of “the State” or “society” or anything really.

    • http://markvans.info markvans

      Repeating yourself on this point does nothing. If your goal is to convince anyone of anything, you need to dig deeper and show your homework. If your goal is just to be disagreeable, then you’re succeeding.

      There is a problem with your understanding of Jesus. You’re not checking your assumptions. And so, when you read the “plain text” you come up with what 2000 years of a particular strand of tradition has shaped your imagination into thinking.

      The lectionary passage from the Western calendar this Sunday, in the first 8 verses of Mark, show that Jesus isn’t simply after conversion of hearts. Why would John the Baptist be in the wilderness, offering forgiveness by the river Jordan if the Temple really offered forgiveness of sins? And why then, would Jesus cast his lot in with John? Jesus only goes to the temple at the end of his ministry, where he spoke words of coming judgement and proceeded to break religious taboo by occupying the temple with folks who were still legally unclean? It is all there in the text for those who have eyes to see. Jesus repeatedly broke taboos, laws, and interpretations of laws. Because, in the end, there is no division between individual “conversion” and a denunciation of systems and structures that enslave individual hearts.

      • Mi_Fe

        Hi Mark,

        Yes I go over and over and over again about the same because the articles in this page seemed so far away from Jesus target. And I will go over the same issues again until people here get tire of me and throw me away or until I become weary myself, whatever happens first.

        With respect to The Baptist I encourage you to read: Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith By Robert Barron. Chapter 1 page 24. You will learn how Jesus (and John) were not about eliminating the Temple but redefining it – in a mystical sense. Also please note that it was well known amongst the Jew that for the remission of sins repentance was absolutely necessary (which was what John was offering). Jews were allowed to purified themselves at home by using water for such purpose. After John baptized he always sent people back home, never to revolt against “the powers” in any way.

        Where are the answers from John to the people according to Luke – chapter 3 (please note the answer to the tax collectors and the soldiers):

        10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.

        11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

        12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

        13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.

        14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”

        He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

        • http://cimarronline.blogspot.com/2004/05/paul-munn.html paul munn

          It’s very unlikely you would ever be kicked off this site. That’s usually not the anarchist (or Christlike) response. Probably the best response, since you seem to be acting as a mouthpiece for the mainstream (and dominant) religious views of our culture, would be to act like was described in the poem Ric quoted in this article:

          Stand ye calm and resolute,
          Like a forest close and mute…

          Jesus sometimes acted this way, too, didn’t he? In other words, folks here should just stop arguing with you. Most of your critiques don’t really need to be answered, in my opinion, or they have been satisfactorily answered long ago.

          I imagine this response would also be quite effective, since it’s hard to have a one-sided argument. It gets boring real fast.

          • Anonymous

            So… You propose ostracism? Yes… I hear the amish do that too… Don’t know about the mennonites, though.

            But believe it or not I’m learning a lot here.

          • http://twitter.com/thejoeturner Joe Turner

            Mi_Fe, with others (I guess), I struggle to understand what the point is of your continued contributions. Latterly you seem to suggest that you will keep making the same points until either you get bored or someone asks you to leave. Which seems to me to be very childish attitude to take.

            I fail to understand why you would want to engage with a Christian Anarchist website when you think that is an oxymoron. Are you trying to convert me to Catholicism? If not, would you like me to suggest other websites where you might have a broader discussion with Christians who are not anarchists?

            Nobody here is perfect. And everyone at times rubs others up the wrong way. But as far as I can see, regular members of this website are here to engage (think through, struggle with) Christian Anarchism. I think there is space for someone to come specifically to disagree with Christian Anarchism – but that would have to be enriching for everyone concerned. And if you are that person, I’d suggest you need to have an argument based on more than ‘x is y because I say so’ if you want people to engage with you.

            Thus, reluctantly, I second Paul’s motion – I’ll not reply to you again whilst you are stuck on the until-I-get-bored-or-get-kicked-off idea.

          • Anonymous

            If you like to apply ostracism then do so. But please do not say that Jesus did that because He did not. Actually it is amazing that one who wants to be like Jesus (I’m refering to Paul) misses the mark so much! Jesus was always available to others, he never marginalized others and only during his trial he kept quite, which is far from applying ostracism.

            And I’m here because my believes are challenged and that provides me the opportunity to grow.

          • Anonymous

            Just for the record: Christ never practiced ostracism, ever. He refused to answer Pilate because He did not want to defend himself. In no other instance does He deny others His words or His interactions. But you can start listeing to your own praises instead of listening to someone that is challenging you… If that’s what you want.

      • Mi_Fe

        Clearly John was not abut not paying taxes! And he was also not about eliminating the military. (Luke 3,12-14)

      • Anonymous

        About Jesus only coming to the Temple at the end of his minister Mathew says:

        Mat 26:55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, ‘Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me.

        He himself says: day after day… More than what you say he did.

        • http://markvans.info markvans

          No, you’re wrong. Day after day can either mean something like a week (which is what I’m saying), or a long time. Every Gospel puts Jesus at the temple only at the very beginning of his life (Luke 2) and at the ending of his ministry.

          • Anonymous

            That’s one interpretation. I’ve seen others.

            1) Jesus was at the Temple as a baby (Luke 2:22)
            2) Jesus was at the Temple as a boy (Luke 2:41)
            3) Jesus was brought to the Temple by the devil (Mathew 4:5)
            4) Jesus was at the Temple before he died once (Mathew 21:12, Mark 11:11)
            5) Jesus was at the Temple before he died twice (Mathew 21:23, Mark 11:15)
            6) Jesus was at the Temple before he died a third time (Mark 11:27)

            But this is what I get from this account: As a child growing up it is very likely that He was brought to the Temple more than just twice, He was taught to respect an honor the Temple and because I kown Jesus did not want to give scandal to anyone I know He regarded the Temple as a holy place. And that also goes for what the Temple meant, as a holy institution not just a place.

          • http://twitter.com/thejoeturner Joe Turner

            Given the distance between Nazareth and Jerusalem, I’d think it unlikely to be a regular (weekly/monthly) thing and that the daily attendance was in the period when he ‘came down to Jerusalem’. In the special spiritual occasions when Jesus might have gone to the Temple, he went up mountains according to my reading of the gospels.

    • Mewithoutyou121

      No one is saying we shouldn’t be for “moralsuasion.” The point is that we should be for OTHER activism at the SAME time. Your assertions that ONLY persuading people to be peaceful and non-coercive in their social relations is depressingly naive and implies that you’re a pacifist that just wants to decry anyone who would have different legitimate tactics than you.

      • http://markvans.info markvans

        So…I’m not sure I see how Mi_Fe’s approach should be assumed to be pacifist. I’m a pacifist and still see all kinds of ways of pushing against the system that don’t involve killing.

        • Mewithoutyou121

          Same here, I knew that wasn’t the right word, perhaps I meant “passive pacifist” who’s dogmatism leads to a sort of irrational rejection of anything that doesn’t fit the most peaceful/happy/nice/feel-good activism

          • Mi_Fe

            No! Please! On this one Mark is right. I am NOT a pacifist (passive or otherwise)

  • http://abideinme.net/index.html Wes Howard-Brook

    Thanks,.Ric, for a beautiful reflection. I’m more if a fan of Garrison than Thoreau, whose activism was very limited in time. If you haven’t read the excellent biography of Garrison by Henry Meyer, ” All on Fire,” I highly recommend it. Garrison needs to be better known in these circles.v

    • ric hudgens

      I agree. I think a strong argument could be made that there would have been no emancipation without Garrison long-term, single-minded devotion to the cause. He was an amazing man as both Thoreau and Emerson recognized.

  • Anonymous

    Dig the article, perfect timing for me as I read Thoreau. Also the quote is much better without that editing, possibly even tattoo worthy…

    Anyway my main thoughts about this are how we can actually become effective and trade the infighting for more constructive and open dialogue as well as finding the tender spots of civilization. It sounds great, but seems more and more difficult in our time when most anarchists are still in their Emerson stage of negotiating with the state sponsored terrorists.

    • primaltruth

      This possibility has been mentioned before in comments, where a forum would serve well for that, and opening an email group for it as well. Either one can be done having free or low cost availability. Either would allow personal communication as well. An email group would need to give invitations to those who would be interested without having an account from that server for the group. I would take part in it with any that would willingly share responsibility. Discussion for positive results using our perspectives in radical Christianity would be possible that way.

    • ric hudgens

      To be fair to Emerson: five years after his complaint to Thoreau he was also recommending civil disobedience in response to the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law which required those in free states to return escaped slaves to their owners. “I will not obey it, by God” Emerson wrote in this journal. Thoreau’s influence on Emerson is not appreciated mainly because Thoreau died first and Emerson never openly recognized it.

      Even today the potential for the younger generation to inspire and influence the older generation to bolder action should not be underestimated (nor escape appreciation!).

      If you get that tattoo let me know.

      • Anonymous

        Emerson did also give John Brown money to purchase rifles later. I don’t really see anything like that happening anytime soon, pacifists can’t give up their sacred cow.

        • http://markvans.info markvans

          Making sweepingly dismissive statements towards “pacifists” doesn’t really encourage anyone to think more deeply about radical praxis. It is as tired as the foolish way that some pacifists dismiss all kinds of violence with the same brush.

          • Anonymous

            Didn’t mean it to be completely dismissive of pacifists, only their dismissiveness towards people who don’t adhere to pacifism. It does easily go both way amongst radical circles, but I see a lot of focus on nonviolence at Jesus Radicals (which is understandable) and it is nice to question these things time to time. Also I don’t mean to actually condone everything John Brown but to remember some radical history.

          • ric hudgens

            John Brown’s life is worthy of study. He was an amazing character and the admiration that men like Thoreau and Emerson had for him is impressive (Emerson supported Brown but thought the raid on Harper’s Ferry was poorly thought out).

            I do believe that studying radical history is something we need to make time for in our communities. It’s not about education for education’s sake; but about finding inspiration, encouragement, and guidance from past struggles.

            Things like slavery and apartheid seemed hopelessly entrenched and unchangeable to most; but there were a few who grabbed hold and wouldn’t let go. I hear a lot of despair in our circles. Faith means reminding ourselves that we do not know what is possible.

        • ric hudgens

          625,000 people died in the American Civil War (about 600 a day for almost five years). If any those commencing that war would have known the ultimate cost I wonder how their actions (and convictions) would have changed – especially given that equality did not result from emancipation and continue to lag to our own day.

          I am not committed “pacifism” (nor “anarchism”) but I am committed to Jesus – who is not a sacred cow.

          • Anonymous

            First of all, not calling anybody specific out, anarchists (including myself) that promote violence or don’t have all been ineffective to the degree we would like. I think to put the blame on John Brown and his crowd is unfair and victim blaming, not that John Brown is my hero or anything, just interesting because I never heard of him throughout my entire public school education. They were trying to bring an end to an unjust society based on the slavery of millions which resulted in something like 12 million people dying during their forced relocation, that’s on par with the Halocaust. I don’t like that the civil war happened but that was more the fault of greedy white euroamericans, and not so much John Brown.

          • ric hudgens

            See my note on John Brown below.

  • http://cimarronline.blogspot.com/2004/05/paul-munn.html paul munn

    I found the title quote interesting, but didn’t quite understand Thoreau’s meaning. It actually comes across quite different in context:

    I walk toward one of our ponds; but what signifies the beauty of nature when men are base? We walk to lakes to see our serenity reflected in them; when we are not serene, we go not to them. Who can be serene in a country where both the rulers and the ruled are without principle? The remembrance of my country spoils my walk. My thoughts are murder to the State, and involuntarily go plotting against her.

    It sounds to me that his point is that he cannot enjoy nature because he is so troubled, can only think of “murder” towards the State. A common condition in certain circles, I’d say. He doesn’t seem too happy about that condition, though.

    One part of the argument that does seem to clearly veer away from Jesus is the source of hope: “Ye are many—they are few.” It also stands behind Thoreau’s “if a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills…” That’s not the hope Jesus offered is it? He actually said that we, his followers, are not the many but the few.

    • ric hudgens

      I love the context of Thoreau’s quotation because it does point to his dismay that the process of civilization is destroying the nature that he loves. The State” is the engine of this destruction. The other interesting note here is that he “involuntarily” goes plotting – he is not manipulating his own thoughts but merely noticing that when he sees that which he loves being destroyed he cannot help but feel the desire for some type of vengeance.

      There is also an interesting ambiguity in his statement. Is he saying “my thoughts” are all about taking murderous action against the state? Or is he saying “my thought” if known by the state would be condemned as murderous? It could be either or both. This ambiguity is part of what I love about the quote.

      But of course the key was that any action Thoreau took would have to be in a form appropriate to that which he was opposing. The State cannot literally be murdered. So Thoreau took “vengeance” by disobeying the demands of the State (in a way similar to what his contemporary Herman Melville narrated in his short story about Bartleby the Scrivener). There is a not so silent desperation in Thoreau (and also in Emerson) about the nature of the state that they were born into, could not escape from, and struggled to oppose.

      He feels as if he has blood on his hands and so refusing to pay his taxes is one way of cleansing them. Thoreau’s question about a “peaceable revolution” is not what it looks like but whether it is possible. He was not a Christian so Thoreau’s hope is not my hope (nor yours). But my hope may not be entirely yours either (and I would hope we would not have to document all our differences yet again!).

      But if everyone who identifies as a Christian decided not to pay their taxes until the “state” stopped using their money for warfare it is difficult for me to imagine that in consulting with Jesus (through the Holy Spirit in the faithful community) God would say: “Oh no, you don’t need to go to all that trouble!”.

      • http://cimarronline.blogspot.com/2004/05/paul-munn.html paul munn

        Desperation, yes.

        But if Thoreau’s “thoughts” are along the lines that you describe (which they seem to be), basically that there is strength in numbers, “we are many,” “if a thousand men would not pay their tax bills…,” then that’s not murder to the State at all. That’s precisely the thought that originated the State, that there is strength in numbers. That people united are strong. That’s why the State was created, and why people continue to think it necessary. The only way out of that, the only way to truly disempower the State, is to stop believing that we need a thousand (or millions). When Jesus’ “few” is enough for us.

        Can you “bite” with a few?

        • ric hudgens

          Like I said Paul, I don’t really want to go around with you on things we have discussed before. Perhaps others do. Or perhaps they would just like to go to your essay of a few weeks ago where you have already outlined your views on this.

  • Travis

    Can someone remind me of the name of an earlier (German?) theologian(I think) that was critiquing civilization? I heard his name a couple times in the last 2 days, and I thought one of them was in this post or it’s comments, but I can’t find it. The other time was I was listening to an old episode of Anarchy Radio that an Andy was a guest on and he mentioned his name and I think Ellul as influential or influenced by. I think the name started with an H, but wasn’t Herzog. Sorry for off topic.

  • JamesH

    Thanks for this essay Ric. It is something I will refer back to as I decide whether or not to pay my taxes this year.

    I was wondering if you could clarify your statement: “I believe we must all seek to find the one place, the one issue, the one firm grip we can grasp upon our own responsibility and calling in this time.” Are you saying that we as individuals need to focus all of our efforts on a particular issue? Are you saying we must all work together to focus on a particular issue?

    After reading your article what really strikes me about Thoreau and about the poem is that resilient non-participation is one of greatest things we can do to ‘bite’ the empire. I think people sometimes feel as if simply not participating in evil (whether by refusing to pay taxes, evading a draft, boycotting a product, etc.) is not hardcore enough. But empire only works because people participate in it. We sometimes speak as if Hitler single handedly carried out the Holocaust — but if it weren’t for thousands of participants who willingly participated in that task then Hitler would have just been one angry anti-Semite with a weird mustache. It’s fascinating to me how simple non-participation draws the ire of the state — Thoreau and others imprisoned for not paying taxes, or how the U.S. has responded to conscientious objectors in wartime. When it comes down to it one or two people not paying taxes isn’t going to hurt the pocketbook of the state. And conscientious objectors were never numerous enough to really threaten war efforts. But the fact that the state has to crack down on these non-participants reveals a ‘soft spot’ of empire. They’re afraid that if a handful of people refuse to participate, then others might begin to realize that participation in empire is not as natural, necessary, or common sensical as they had thought. The Matrix can’t handle having even a small handful of people who have taken the red pill living in its midst, because they will challenge the givenness and reality of the system.

    I guess for me the primary way I am determined to ‘bite’ the empire is by persuading my fellow Christians that the Way of Jesus and military service are incompatible. After being a part of a church that turned out more marines than missionaries I realized how much the U.S. military is staffed by people of strong Christian conviction. I dream about a day in the very near future that the U.S. will need to reinstitute the draft because Christians simply aren’t signing up anymore.

    • ric hudgens

      Hey James,

      Given my own experience in local community (and online community!) I don’t think it’s always possible or necessary to agree on one particular “issue” [and the term "issue" limits your choices too much I think]. I do however think that it’s important to find “a grip” somewhere rather than remain in quietism (just sipping my eggnog and complaining about how commercial Christmas is . . . ). Surely everyone reading this can at least agree on that even if we disagree about about what that might be. That’s my point.

      I like your term “resilient non-participation” that seems like a good thread to follow for finding practices of counter conduct. The point of Shelley’s last line is not that you need massive numbers to succeed; but rather you need to endure over time despite all disappointments and momentary defeats; like Dr King urged in the civil rights movement. Those who can do that “will have come through the great tribulation . . .” (Rev 7:13ff).

      Garrison and company argued that slavery was wrong, that it must be ended, and then they devoted the rest of their lives (literally the rest of their lives) to helping that come about. Committing yourself to even one thing and holding on creates social space for other things to happen and that can result in real, material change. Most people in this world need real, material change and not just essays on radical blogs . . .

  • Keith Wilson

    Thanks for that post. I enjoyed the story and am now re-inspired to attempt Walden again. I started reading it a year or two ago and was put off by what, at the time to me, seemed like more youthful arrogance than I could willingly put up with. On the other hand, his Walden pond experiment is something I wish I could do in many ways, though…being accountable to my spouse and children is probably a better path for me in the end. Anyway, thanks. Also, I’m glad to hear where one of my favorite stanza’s in a Strike Anywhere song came from. The last stanza in the Shelly poem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5nUSGj_56w or for those with more delicate ears, here is an acoustic version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5nUSGj_56w

    • Schalk Venter

      Ah man. I love Strike Anywhere, thanks for making the connection on my part.

      • Keith Wilson

        Right on. You’re welcome Schalk. I see you are in S.A. It seems that Strike Anywhere is more popular in Europe and abroad than they are here. That album is some of the most rallying, inspiring protest music. I love it.

Previous post:

Next post: