Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Pacifism

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's not pacifism.

    Never said it was.
    But when do you know which is which? We declared war on Nazi Germany.

    If you accept the whole "country" bullshit, then we had a mutual defence contract with some of our european neighbours. Hence it was defensive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it can never be achieved.... you will never get 6 billion people to agree on anything, and as long as you cant agree there are going to be some who will resort to violence to ensure there beliefs are followed

    ..............and they get labelled "Government" .


    Besides, war has given us many things which probably would not have been discovered for years otherwise.

    Could you list these "many" things ?

    the worst part is, we need war. mankind is the only species we have on earth that doesnt have a natural predator to keep its population in check. we used to have famine, disease, drought, all of these have been reduced significantly. wars on a large scale (as bad as it sounds ) every so often do manage to keep our numbers in check

    On what facts do you base this opinion?


    seeker
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Never said it was.

    Smashing. So we've got one 'against pacifism' as a doable system...two including me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    [QUOTE=seeker



    On what facts do you base this opinion?


    seeker[/QUOTE]
    i'd guess a mix of good old fashioned ignorance and arrogance.
    with a sprinkling of selfishness and short sightedness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Plenty of people in the UK in 1939 demonstrated in the streets for arbitration with Hitler rather than war.

    And can you perhaps imagine why so many in Britain might have possibly sought to avoid war? Any slight inkling whatsoever, hmmm?

    Pacifism works when organised en masse, such as was proven by Ghandi in effectively mobilising mass shutdown of the mechanisms required for the then colonial powers to maintain their apparatus of control. With sufficient mobilisation and organisation, mass stoppage can quite successively oppose and curtail even the most brutal of state systems by way of focussing active attention on every act of violence employed to break the resistance. This, in the end, turns the spotlight of shame and ultimately of perpetual ostracism from that society upon all those who directly perpetrate such brutality or in any way support it.

    The matter of self defence is wholly distinct and no less viable a concept in addressing expansionistic armed aggression.

    I personally see both principles as being quite capable of co-existing and co-operating to reverse the present regressionist movement of our modern corrupt corporatist "state" syndicates back to the historically failed goal of global domination through economic and military means. Shutdown their means at home through organised mass refusal to cooperate any longer and this in turn will enable progressive recall of our national military infrastructure to our own respective soils once the present corporate-government collusionists have been duly toppled and publically exposed and indicted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes the UK did, after Hitler's Germany was already well underway in pursuing war of aggression against other sovereign states. That is a far cry from launching "pre-emptive" attack on a nation (or nations as the case may be) which are not attacking anyone outside their borders. "Pre-emptive" is nothing more than newspeak PR for the very evil the UK declared war on Germany to curtail.

    That may be true - but on 3 September 1939, Germany had reoccupied the Rhineland (part of Germany and with no violence), Anschluss with Austria (with no violence) and had occupied Czechslovakia (with no violence). The war with Poland was only two days old.

    And internally the Final Solution had no started (though Jews were being sent to camps they weren't being killed in large numbers). In 1939 Hitler had killed much less of his population than Saddam had (who had also invaded two sovereign countries himself).

    And lets not romanticise the level of support for war in 1939. Many on the hard left quite happily opposed the war until Hitler double-crossed Stalin.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pacifism works when organised en masse, such as was proven by Ghandi in effectively mobilising mass shutdown of the mechanisms required for the then colonial powers to maintain their apparatus of control. With sufficient mobilisation and organisation, mass stoppage can quite successively oppose and curtail even the most brutal of state systems by way of focussing active attention on every act of violence employed to break the resistance. This, in the end, turns the spotlight of shame and ultimately of perpetual ostracism from that society upon all those who directly perpetrate such brutality or in any way support it.

    Not quiet true. Whilst Gandhi was practicing non-violent resistance there were many others who were doing violent resistance and a large number of Indians who either didn't care whether they were ruled by Britain or by their own politicians or actually supported British rule.

    India's Independence was caused more by a shift in British attitudes to Empire and her economic situation than anything Indians did.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pacifism works when organised en masse, such as was proven by Ghandi in effectively mobilising mass shutdown of the mechanisms required for the then colonial powers to maintain their apparatus of control. With sufficient mobilisation and organisation, mass stoppage can quite successively oppose and curtail even the most brutal of state systems by way of focussing active attention on every act of violence employed to break the resistance. This, in the end, turns the spotlight of shame and ultimately of perpetual ostracism from that society upon all those who directly perpetrate such brutality or in any way support it.

    I think it's more to do with the fact that the "government" claims that it is a peaceful, civilised institution. Because it would have no support if the average man in the street woke up and saw how it actually operates, most of "government" efforts go towards making sure that they have excellent PR.

    PR being "democracy", the court system, taking over certain services and saying that is what "tax" is for. (You get the idea)

    Ghandi showed them exactly how brutal they were and it turned out that the illusion of civility was more important than control.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    I think it's more to do with the fact that the "government" claims that it is a peaceful, civilised institution. Because it would have no support if the average man in the street woke up and saw how it actually operates, most of "government" efforts go towards making sure that they have excellent PR.

    PR being "democracy", the court system, taking over certain services and saying that is what "tax" is for. (You get the idea)

    Ghandi showed them exactly how brutal they were and it turned out that the illusion of civility was more important than control.

    Not quite sure what youre response is meant to challenge since the statement you quoted concerns the workability of and context for pacifist resistance, not the reasons for it.

    I fully agree that far too many presently delude themselves into false and smug acceptance of the status quo as actively and continually constructed by both our government systems and the big money interests which they serve. But such things too lose efficacy as more and more see the effects of the lies encroaching on their own liberties. It's always just a matter of time as the wheel of history and the lessons ignored come full circle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    India's Independence was caused more by a shift in British attitudes to Empire and her economic situation than anything Indians did.

    A shift brought about by a combination of factors including quite substantively that of the unavoidable shock of reports back on the violence perpetrated by colonial forces against unarmed civilians in order to maintain imperial control.

    Of course there will always be those who resort to armed resistance and even those who continue to attempt to simply stay out of it and let other's do the brunt of the work. Nevertheless, Ghandi's mobilisations and organisational effects far outweighed either of the other two groups in the balance of resistance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not quite sure what youre response is meant to challenge since the statement you quoted concerns the workability of and context for pacifist resistance, not the reasons for it.

    Pacifism only works when the "government" claims to be peaceful and enlightened. If Ghandi had pulled that shit under Stalin, he would have been shot by tea-time.

    Most movements against "government" power attack them where they are strongest - by imploring those with "power" to change things for the rest of us mere mortals. When direct action is mobilized, the violence is directed at those in "power" which makes them more powerful if you don't actually win.

    Where "civilised" governments are weakest is in the PR they spit out about being "civilised". They have a long history of backing down when the PR mask slips and of using any means necessary before it does to stop it slipping.
    I fully agree that far too many presently delude themselves into false and smug acceptance of the status quo as actively and continually constructed by both our government systems and the big money interests which they serve. But such things too lose efficacy as more and more see the effects of the lies encroaching on their own liberties. It's always just a matter of time as the wheel of history and the lessons ignored come full circle.

    Yes agreed. What is interesting is that they always leave the door slightly ajar so that the more intelligent citizens can still get wads of cash (but no real freedom, obviously). These people then become the gatekeepers of the whole process on a day to day level. It's brilliantly clever.

    Watch RK and others defend the system as is so they can carry on feeling superior, rationality totally unimportant compared to ego.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Yes agreed. What is interesting is that they always leave the door slightly ajar so that the more intelligent citizens can still get wads of cash (but no real freedom, obviously). These people then become the gatekeepers of the whole process on a day to day level. It's brilliantly clever.

    I think you give the so-called 'powers that be' far too much credit. Our system doesn't work by design as such, it works for the same reason that a soap bubble is spherical - given the forces which operate on it, it is the shape which requires the least energy to maintain.

    There is no conspiracy, there is just human nature.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you give the so-called 'powers that be' far too much credit. Our system doesn't work by design as such, it works for the same reason that a soap bubble is spherical - given the forces which operate on it, it is the shape which requires the least energy to maintain.

    Nope. It's all designed from the monetary system on up. By the same guys who made the monetary system. :)
    There is no conspiracy, there is just human nature

    Then why does it require almost all the humans in it to go against their nature?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you believe that Grapes then you comprehend nothing of how national government let alone international globalist system building is advanced. Politics by its very nature IS conspiratorial and the interconnected institutionalised mechanisms of global influence and power are quite clearly identifiable for their concerted planning behind closed doors (and under the fraudulent banners of "national security").

    Nevertheless, you continue to live in your happy soap bubble delusion if that helps you sleep. Those capitalising on such dismissive, unscrutinising attitudes expect no less from the sheeple.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It might take a war on such a scale that the survivors are exhausted by fighting or a "uniting factor" that makes our arguments look pathetic (i.e asteroid impact, alien encounter) to make global peace a reality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you believe that Grapes then you comprehend nothing of how national government

    Funny that, because I've worked in national government and I'm here to tell you that half of it just isn't bright enough for conspiracy and the other half spends most of its time trying to sort out what the other half cocked up.

    I don't deny that conspiracies sometimes flourish, do their work and die, but there is no global, overarching conspiracy.

    Btw, nice ad hominem at the end. I've always had a soft spot for that mode of arguing...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suspect we'll see sufficient causation in a couple generations when the oil-based economy collapses entirely and the suffering caused by the current shortsighted profiteering reaches crisis proportions in our formerly comfortable and complacent societies.

    I wouldnt offer much hope to those within the present ruling elite circles or their descendants when that time comes.

    Guillotine anyone? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Nope. It's all designed from the monetary system on up. By the same guys who made the monetary system. :)

    The Babylonians?!
    Then why does it require almost all the humans in it to go against their nature?

    It doesn't. Well that's not strictly accurate. In some aspects it does. We're not totally adapted to living in societies. There is an element of all of us that isn't very responsible. There is also an element that needs an ordered society. The human animal is not simple, it has all sorts of dualities.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well perhaps you have worked "in national government" (civil service I suspect), but I doubt you've been privvy to the machinations at the real level of decision making (ie. Cabinet closed-door level).

    I have been involved in foreign policy circles for long enough to confidently say that you woefully underestimate the concerted planning and interconnected design of globalist system building which has been going on since the establishment of the multilateralist institution era post WWII.

    Again, feel free to live in denial of reality. Vigilance and informed dissent are far more arduous to maintain than dismissive apathy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suspect we'll see sufficient causation in a couple generations when the oil-based economy collapses entirely and the suffering caused by the current shortsighted profiteering reaches crisis proportions in our formerly comfortable and complacent societies.

    I wouldnt offer much hope to those within the present ruling elite circles or their descendants when that time comes.

    Guillotine anyone? ;)

    So a move to wars being refought with sticks and stones rather than jets and ballistic missiles?

    Wars aren't a sudden invention of capitalist societies or the need for oil. The first recorded war (which probably wasn't the first war as wars before writing weren't recorded) was in 2700 BC (funnily enough in what is now Iraq)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well perhaps you have worked "in national government" (civil service I suspect),

    No, I empty the bins in the COBRA offices...what are you, a mind reader?
    but I doubt you've been privvy to the machinations at the real level of decision making (ie. Cabinet closed-door level).

    You doubt that based on what exactly? My username? My tone of writing?
    I have been involved in foreign policy circles for long enough to confidently say that you woefully underestimate the concerted planning and interconnected design of globalist system building which has been going on since the establishment of the multilateralist institution era post WWII.

    Ah yes. The coup de gras of any good argument. How about I turn the tables and doubt that you work in any kind of position of privvy knowledge? Now we're on an equal footing?
    Again, feel free to live in denial of reality. Vigilance and informed dissent are far more arduous to maintain than dismissive apathy.

    But this is the giveaway. No self-respecting conspiracy would have let such thinking beyond the psychometric testing level surely?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Babylonians?!

    The money system was changed by the people who are currently in charge. The babylonians had a monetary system based on actual money and not this inflation prone fiat paper shit we have today.
    It doesn't. Well that's not strictly accurate. In some aspects it does. We're not totally adapted to living in societies. There is an element of all of us that isn't very responsible. There is also an element that needs an ordered society. The human animal is not simple, it has all sorts of dualities.

    Can'r be human nature then can it. As you point out it''s not human nature....yet.
    Well perhaps you have worked "in national government" (civil service I suspect), but I doubt you've been privvy to the machinations at the real level of decision making (ie. Cabinet closed-door level).

    They really only react to events. The real guys are the ones pulling the strings in the background - the money men.
    Wars aren't a sudden invention of capitalist societies or the need for oil. The first recorded war (which probably wasn't the first war as wars before writing weren't recorded) was in 2700 BC (funnily enough in what is now Iraq)

    War in it's current sense is a very recent invention. The idea that the working men and women would join in is brand spanking new. The idea that they would do all the fighting relatively recent. In days of yore if TB wabted to be PM he would have to be able to kick ass on his own. (Sooner we get back there the better)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didnt suggest that the end of oil would be an end to all conflict. Nevertheless, it will indeed end the capacity for maintaining global hegemonic control via long range application of military might. Sticks and stones serve well in local conflict but they wont do much to threaten our present powermongers' targets once our planes and ships are immobilised.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Can'r be human nature then can it. As you point out it''s not human nature....yet.

    You misunderstand. I'm saying that human nature is more complicated than that. It's organic and ever-changing but there are aspects that run through most of us (if not all).
    They really only react to events. The real guys are the ones pulling the strings in the background - the money men.

    Who the hell IS in charge?! Seems like there's some trouble agreeing. Is Richard Branson up to something more sinister than breaking balloon-related records?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They really only react to events. The real guys are the ones pulling the strings in the background - the money men.

    Yes Klintock, I alluded to that reality in my comments on globalist system building (aka, The Bilderbergs, Trilateral Commission, etc.). The comment you chose was merely to signify the likely disconnect between Sloth's claimed experience at the "national" level and the reality of the conspiratorial nature of politics as realised behind the closed doors of senior government officials (aka The US Executive Branch, the UK's Cabinet, et al.).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    once our planes and ships are immobilised.

    They never will be. They may have to be scaled down, but there will still be a country which has the strongest army and the best technology even if it's a slow electrically driven tank...or a hydrogen powered one. Oil is simply the easiest fuel source.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    War in it's current sense is a very recent invention. The idea that the working men and women would join in is brand spanking new. The idea that they would do all the fighting relatively recent. In days of yore if TB wabted to be PM he would have to be able to kick ass on his own. (Sooner we get back there the better)

    Personally I'm unaware of war where one person took on one other person (which sounds more like a duel). If however you are trying to say that wars only involving the ruling class are a recent invention I supsect it depends what you mean by recent.

    The Roman Legions in the Golden Age of Empire was mainly composed of professionals (mainly from unskilled and artisan backgrounds) with only a smattering of the aristocracy. The English Archers at Agincourt were not part of the ruling class either. and I could list dozens of other examples.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didnt suggest that the end of oil would be an end to all conflict. Nevertheless, it will indeed end the capacity for maintaining global hegemonic control via long range application of military might. Sticks and stones serve well in local conflict but they wont do much to threaten our present powermongers' targets once our planes and ships are immobilised.

    The British, French, Spanish, Portugese and Dutch seemed to do very well without oil.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You misunderstand. I'm saying that human nature is more complicated than that. It's organic and ever-changing but there are aspects that run through most of us (if not all).

    I just don't like or ever really get the idea of "human nature" It's self contradictory bollocks. It also acts as a double bind a lot of the time. As in we have to do "x" because people will always do "y". When actually "x" causes "y".

    A specific example - we need tougher prisons to combat crime - you bring in tougher sentences - and violent crime goes up because tougher sentences mean more desperate criminals.

    The idea that the matriarchal society of the celts and the feudal belly-opening bushido system are both "human nature" also makes me chuckle.
    Who the hell IS in charge?! Seems like there's some trouble agreeing. Is Richard Branson up to something more sinister than breaking balloon-related records?

    Whoever set the rules would be the one still in charge.

    Branson is a very clever man and used the bankers own principles to make himself wealthy.

    Here is what he did - developed one successful small business, borrowed against it and bought another one, and another one and another one. The reason he keeps buying more and more stuff is to keep up the repayments on stuff he already has. The banks are so deeply into him that they won't let go. There will be some fun when he rolls a 7 though. :D
    They never will be. They may have to be scaled down, but there will still be a country which has the strongest army and the best technology even if it's a slow electrically driven tank...or a hydrogen powered one. Oil is simply the easiest fuel source.

    The army et all are there to keep the domestic population in check as much as face any external threat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally I'm unaware of war where one person took on one other person (which sounds more like a duel). If however you are trying to say that wars only involving the ruling class are a recent invention I supsect it depends what you mean by recent.

    No. I mean wars where the leaders don't fight are relatively recent.
Sign In or Register to comment.