Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
That's not pacifism.
But when do you know which is which? We declared war on Nazi Germany.
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
The Matadore wrote:
Besides, war has given us many things which probably would not have been discovered for years otherwise.
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
Never said it was.
Plenty of people in the UK in 1939 demonstrated in the streets for arbitration with Hitler rather than war.
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.
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.
India's Independence was caused more by a shift in British attitudes to Empire and her economic situation than anything Indians did.
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.
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
If you believe that Grapes then you comprehend nothing of how national government
Nope. It's all designed from the monetary system on up. By the same guys who made the monetary system.
Then why does it require almost all the humans in it to go against their nature?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)
Can'r be human nature then can it. As you point out it''s not human nature....yet.
They really only react to events. The real guys are the ones pulling the strings in the background - the money men.
once our planes and ships are immobilised.
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)
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.