Chris Hedges embodies the spirit of resistance like nobody else; it's present in his body of work, the constant flame that never goes out even when battered by high winds.
Chris, I don't know how to personally resist the evil in our own country, much less globally. I'm a 73-year-old privileged retired white woman - with friends who diligently write to and call their legislators in Washington D.C. about myriad injustices. I'm skeptical that this makes any difference. What are more effective pathways of resistance? Thanks.
WW11 comment is very suspicious. I met Hedges at a free Assange rally in DC two years ago. Hedges, like others, was in a minority of voices who chose, rather than make more money, to speak out and make us aware of Assange’ persecution. He left the NYTIMES (who did pay for his foreign correspondent work) bc they pushed for war in Iraq and he refused and instead spoke out against it and was pushed off the commencement ceremony stage.
Sending my deepest gratitude for your consistently prophetic voice that imparts more meaning to your hearers and readers now than ever before. And that's saying something significant.
Nothing could inculcate hope in me more than listening to this reflection, coming as it does following your interview with Marc Lamont Hill; your addresses with Workers Strike Back and Dr. Ware; and years of solidarity with the oppressed all over the world.
For the past twenty years or so, I have been mourning the seemingly silent extinction of Christian voices of Liberation, but in listening to this, I sense the truth of God's liberatory work in your words of truth and justice and now grasp better how that liberatory intent is unfolding in this time.
I am in the midst of a healing journey with CPTSD, and as I do that work, your words are inviting me to a new kind of listening to the call of faith and solidarity with the poor and oppressed.
You are truly an inspiration.....and yes!!! For the sake of our own lives/souls we must search out the truth as best we can and stand up for it.
We're just finished a documentary on Andrea Dworkin who was marginalized and ridiculed exactly because she spoke the truth WITHOUT APOLOGY about the suffering of women all over the world.
The film is based on an interview we did with her a few months before she died. She said to us: "Everyone who stands up to power has reason to think: I'm going to get smashed. You still have to do it. You still have to do it. Doesn't matter if you're going to get smashed. You still have to do it."
That line was also really significant for me, and I've past it onto many people! That in the face of all our work amounting to nothing, no child saved and no mind changed, we are still doing it. That is grace. That is saving our souls, and consciences.
That question really struck me when I was reading the comments just prior to the Q&A.
I am so glad that this was answered. (I recall that there was an earlier part of this question - or perhaps a different, related question - that had asked for a development of the comment from an earlier interview, regarding the statement that "The soul is real.") And that struck deeply at that time as well.
Somehow, in a way that I can't explain, on any "rational" basis, the truth that it doesn't matter what the outcome, that which ultimately matters is the survival of the spirit, to not succumb to what is described here as "radical evil". The truth that in some way THIS matters, this survives, this cannot be extinguished. This is the truth that is more fundamental than that which plays out/manifests in the world.
(And thank you to Chris Hedges for citing the books.)
Flying to the U.K. to attend Julian Assange trial(s) is not resistance. Its called journalism. The fact that he paid for it himself, is because Chris Hedges is an independent journalist. If he had worked for a publication (not that any publication would have covered it), then his employer would have paid for it. I also bet you dollars to donuts, that the cost for Hedges to go to the U.K. was a business expense as an self employed journalist and that it was incorporated into his tax return as a cost that reduced his tax burden for engaging in this business venture, not resistance.
While I agree that Assange was wrongfully persecuted as a journalist and glad he is back home, IMO Hedges never did anything to directly resist what happened to him. Yes, he informed his listeners and readers of the persecution just as any journalist would do with a subject that they choose to engage with. Let's be honest her, Chris, and not try to re-write history in an attempt to make yourself feel like, or appear as, a martyr.
What a strange comment this is. You seem to differentiate what Assange and Hedges did: they had the same jobs. It was to uncover hidden truths and communicate them to the people. This cost Hedges his career, and it cost Assange his liberty, and nearly his life. Neither, to my knowledge, showed any interest in martyrdom, their sacrifices were incidental, and unintended. And, you know, if you spend money, and then deduct it as a business expense, you don’t actually end up with more money.
The only reason it seems "strange" to you is because you apparently have no capacity for logic or business acumen. Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking as well.
Of course expensing a business cost against your tax liability leaves one with more money. If you don't expense that business cost, then you're giving extra money to the government for absolutely no reason. My contention is that he likely expensed his trip to the U.K. to cover Assanges trial(s) and registered it on his taxes. Why else would you expense anything on your taxes?; the government would be perfectly happy if you expenses nothing against your income. So of course you "end up with more money" if you expense it.
Further, I didn't differentiate between Assange and Hedges as journalists. In fact, I made no comment on Assange at all other than he was persecuted for his journalism (*so has been Hedges for that matter) and that I am glad he is out of prison (home). My point was Hedges' (or Assange's) journalism is not resistance or civil disobedience. In my opinion, neither broke the law by practicing their professional craft of journalism. The U.S. and U.K. governments think Assange did. It's up the citizens of both countries that hold the same opinion (that apparently includes you) to ensure their respective governments are held accountable for those actions. In the end, Assange signed a statement attesting that he broke the law in order to get himself released from prison. Personally, I think if you asked him (confidentially) if he believed the statement he signed was true, I believe he would deny it. Whether it is worth holding onto that likely cognitive dissonance (vs. dying for its denial) is something only Assange can answer.
*It hasn't, however, cost him his career. He has adapted beautifully (IMO) and still gainfully practices his journalism. Has his career changed paths because of his persecution as a journalist that refutes the prevailing narrative espoused by controlling oligarchs? Sure. However, virtually all careers do not travel in a straight trajectory. He is not unique in that respect.
Ad hominem arguments, like "no capacity for logic...reading comprehension lacking", are logical fallacies used when a commenter wants to avoid answering points raised. So instead attacks the character of the person making them..
You say Chris was merely attempting to appear as a martyr. The reply was neither journalist was after martyrdom, whether in fact or only in appearance. Where is your evidence they were? As you say, IMO--and opinions don't have to be based in rationalism or anything substantial.
You seem to believe that Chris's actions (and perhaps of humanity in general) are only a matter of self-interest. In capitalist econ theory, that's known as the utility function, an assumption that's the basis of the current econopathy. But there's no empirical evidence for it and it amounts to nothing more than a belief.
Those who consider it true cannot fathom that other people might actually be motivated by religious faith, devote their lives to the common good, or consider group needs ahead of their own personal ones as do labor unions and Indigenous peoples. This all sounds fake to believers in self-interest alone, so they dismiss such claims as moral grandstanding. Nothing can convince them otherwise since they've never experienced it.
And BTW, the word "martyr" is from the Greek, it simply means WITNESS, including in NT koine. Which Chris certainly is--and much more. Look up his Wiki bio for details.
No ad homineum arguements from me. I simply called out the facts with regard to cost savings from expenses when addressing the fallacious point raised by Sera.
With regard to my position on calling Hedges a martyr: Of course it was meant figuratively- we all fully realize he is not deceased. If you want to appear as an expert on the Latin origins of language, then you would do well to look up the actual definitions. Acting like a martyr is understood to mean "to behave in a way that appears to make you a victim or to deserve sympathy and admiration". I fully stand behind my characterization of his commentary in that regard.
"the facts" are exactly what your terminology wasn't; you did attack her personal abilities. Therefore that part was indeed ad hominem. Again, where is your empirical evidence?
About "martyr"-the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries primarily define the term quite differently than you do. Take your own advice--"you'd do well to look it up." Nothing about "appearing," used as if you were of the mentality I described in my 4th paragraph--those who consider it all moral grandstanding. Nor did I say Latin whatsoever; I said Greek, and my etymology is correct.
About speaking figuratively, how about if I intended "witness" as a nod to Chris's theological background? Besides, I fully stand behind my characterization of him. His behavior over decades lets us see who he is; visible evidence, not vague conjecture.
As for me "wanting to appear...expert," there's that implicit putdown "appear" again. Because I write well, do you assume I must be some smart ass academic? I was a rank and file blue collar labor activist for 30 years. Some of us can read, write, and think.
Chris Hedges embodies the spirit of resistance like nobody else; it's present in his body of work, the constant flame that never goes out even when battered by high winds.
Chris, I don't know how to personally resist the evil in our own country, much less globally. I'm a 73-year-old privileged retired white woman - with friends who diligently write to and call their legislators in Washington D.C. about myriad injustices. I'm skeptical that this makes any difference. What are more effective pathways of resistance? Thanks.
WW11 comment is very suspicious. I met Hedges at a free Assange rally in DC two years ago. Hedges, like others, was in a minority of voices who chose, rather than make more money, to speak out and make us aware of Assange’ persecution. He left the NYTIMES (who did pay for his foreign correspondent work) bc they pushed for war in Iraq and he refused and instead spoke out against it and was pushed off the commencement ceremony stage.
Chris,
Sending my deepest gratitude for your consistently prophetic voice that imparts more meaning to your hearers and readers now than ever before. And that's saying something significant.
Nothing could inculcate hope in me more than listening to this reflection, coming as it does following your interview with Marc Lamont Hill; your addresses with Workers Strike Back and Dr. Ware; and years of solidarity with the oppressed all over the world.
For the past twenty years or so, I have been mourning the seemingly silent extinction of Christian voices of Liberation, but in listening to this, I sense the truth of God's liberatory work in your words of truth and justice and now grasp better how that liberatory intent is unfolding in this time.
I am in the midst of a healing journey with CPTSD, and as I do that work, your words are inviting me to a new kind of listening to the call of faith and solidarity with the poor and oppressed.
Thank you so so much,
Peace and all good things to you,
Janie
You are truly an inspiration.....and yes!!! For the sake of our own lives/souls we must search out the truth as best we can and stand up for it.
We're just finished a documentary on Andrea Dworkin who was marginalized and ridiculed exactly because she spoke the truth WITHOUT APOLOGY about the suffering of women all over the world.
The film is based on an interview we did with her a few months before she died. She said to us: "Everyone who stands up to power has reason to think: I'm going to get smashed. You still have to do it. You still have to do it. Doesn't matter if you're going to get smashed. You still have to do it."
After 20 years her books are being reprinted: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250359216/rightwingwomen/
Check out our film: https://jaxsplacetv.vhx.tv/
That line was also really significant for me, and I've past it onto many people! That in the face of all our work amounting to nothing, no child saved and no mind changed, we are still doing it. That is grace. That is saving our souls, and consciences.
just wanted to say thanks for how clips like these are packaged to insert relevant fotos --- nice touch
I think you are the best! You have taught me so much and I am in awe of everything you write and speak about! I will forever be grateful! Thank you !
That question really struck me when I was reading the comments just prior to the Q&A.
I am so glad that this was answered. (I recall that there was an earlier part of this question - or perhaps a different, related question - that had asked for a development of the comment from an earlier interview, regarding the statement that "The soul is real.") And that struck deeply at that time as well.
Somehow, in a way that I can't explain, on any "rational" basis, the truth that it doesn't matter what the outcome, that which ultimately matters is the survival of the spirit, to not succumb to what is described here as "radical evil". The truth that in some way THIS matters, this survives, this cannot be extinguished. This is the truth that is more fundamental than that which plays out/manifests in the world.
(And thank you to Chris Hedges for citing the books.)
Refuse fascism
Oppose Oppression
Lol. Chris
Flying to the U.K. to attend Julian Assange trial(s) is not resistance. Its called journalism. The fact that he paid for it himself, is because Chris Hedges is an independent journalist. If he had worked for a publication (not that any publication would have covered it), then his employer would have paid for it. I also bet you dollars to donuts, that the cost for Hedges to go to the U.K. was a business expense as an self employed journalist and that it was incorporated into his tax return as a cost that reduced his tax burden for engaging in this business venture, not resistance.
While I agree that Assange was wrongfully persecuted as a journalist and glad he is back home, IMO Hedges never did anything to directly resist what happened to him. Yes, he informed his listeners and readers of the persecution just as any journalist would do with a subject that they choose to engage with. Let's be honest her, Chris, and not try to re-write history in an attempt to make yourself feel like, or appear as, a martyr.
What a strange comment this is. You seem to differentiate what Assange and Hedges did: they had the same jobs. It was to uncover hidden truths and communicate them to the people. This cost Hedges his career, and it cost Assange his liberty, and nearly his life. Neither, to my knowledge, showed any interest in martyrdom, their sacrifices were incidental, and unintended. And, you know, if you spend money, and then deduct it as a business expense, you don’t actually end up with more money.
The only reason it seems "strange" to you is because you apparently have no capacity for logic or business acumen. Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking as well.
Of course expensing a business cost against your tax liability leaves one with more money. If you don't expense that business cost, then you're giving extra money to the government for absolutely no reason. My contention is that he likely expensed his trip to the U.K. to cover Assanges trial(s) and registered it on his taxes. Why else would you expense anything on your taxes?; the government would be perfectly happy if you expenses nothing against your income. So of course you "end up with more money" if you expense it.
Further, I didn't differentiate between Assange and Hedges as journalists. In fact, I made no comment on Assange at all other than he was persecuted for his journalism (*so has been Hedges for that matter) and that I am glad he is out of prison (home). My point was Hedges' (or Assange's) journalism is not resistance or civil disobedience. In my opinion, neither broke the law by practicing their professional craft of journalism. The U.S. and U.K. governments think Assange did. It's up the citizens of both countries that hold the same opinion (that apparently includes you) to ensure their respective governments are held accountable for those actions. In the end, Assange signed a statement attesting that he broke the law in order to get himself released from prison. Personally, I think if you asked him (confidentially) if he believed the statement he signed was true, I believe he would deny it. Whether it is worth holding onto that likely cognitive dissonance (vs. dying for its denial) is something only Assange can answer.
*It hasn't, however, cost him his career. He has adapted beautifully (IMO) and still gainfully practices his journalism. Has his career changed paths because of his persecution as a journalist that refutes the prevailing narrative espoused by controlling oligarchs? Sure. However, virtually all careers do not travel in a straight trajectory. He is not unique in that respect.
Ad hominem arguments, like "no capacity for logic...reading comprehension lacking", are logical fallacies used when a commenter wants to avoid answering points raised. So instead attacks the character of the person making them..
You say Chris was merely attempting to appear as a martyr. The reply was neither journalist was after martyrdom, whether in fact or only in appearance. Where is your evidence they were? As you say, IMO--and opinions don't have to be based in rationalism or anything substantial.
You seem to believe that Chris's actions (and perhaps of humanity in general) are only a matter of self-interest. In capitalist econ theory, that's known as the utility function, an assumption that's the basis of the current econopathy. But there's no empirical evidence for it and it amounts to nothing more than a belief.
Those who consider it true cannot fathom that other people might actually be motivated by religious faith, devote their lives to the common good, or consider group needs ahead of their own personal ones as do labor unions and Indigenous peoples. This all sounds fake to believers in self-interest alone, so they dismiss such claims as moral grandstanding. Nothing can convince them otherwise since they've never experienced it.
And BTW, the word "martyr" is from the Greek, it simply means WITNESS, including in NT koine. Which Chris certainly is--and much more. Look up his Wiki bio for details.
No ad homineum arguements from me. I simply called out the facts with regard to cost savings from expenses when addressing the fallacious point raised by Sera.
With regard to my position on calling Hedges a martyr: Of course it was meant figuratively- we all fully realize he is not deceased. If you want to appear as an expert on the Latin origins of language, then you would do well to look up the actual definitions. Acting like a martyr is understood to mean "to behave in a way that appears to make you a victim or to deserve sympathy and admiration". I fully stand behind my characterization of his commentary in that regard.
"the facts" are exactly what your terminology wasn't; you did attack her personal abilities. Therefore that part was indeed ad hominem. Again, where is your empirical evidence?
About "martyr"-the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries primarily define the term quite differently than you do. Take your own advice--"you'd do well to look it up." Nothing about "appearing," used as if you were of the mentality I described in my 4th paragraph--those who consider it all moral grandstanding. Nor did I say Latin whatsoever; I said Greek, and my etymology is correct.
About speaking figuratively, how about if I intended "witness" as a nod to Chris's theological background? Besides, I fully stand behind my characterization of him. His behavior over decades lets us see who he is; visible evidence, not vague conjecture.
As for me "wanting to appear...expert," there's that implicit putdown "appear" again. Because I write well, do you assume I must be some smart ass academic? I was a rank and file blue collar labor activist for 30 years. Some of us can read, write, and think.