Pacifism, man's only hope, but it never works

We applaud pacifism, then realize we’re going to need teeth or else a violent bully is going to run us over, then the teeth lead to ever escalating violence and wars and suffering, etc. Is there a solution?

Part 2: it occurs to me that IF the early church had succeeded in maintaining its original non-violent nature, there might still have been time to stop this juggernaut, you think? I’m not trying to get into religion so much as ask IF any institution or group of people could have held in the early centuries AD without resorting to violence, was it still not to late, at that time, for a hope of world peace?

The alternative to aggressive defense is harmonic momentum, the “Optimum Momentum of Inclusive Self-Harmony”.

Imagine a 2500HP engine running at full throttle. Throw a rock at it, maybe a wrench, perhaps a bolder. It is not going to stop so easily.

In the case of a simple mechanism, intelligent people can find ways to “get under its skin”, such as putting sugar in the gas tank, sand in the oil, or starving it of air. A mechanism, unaware of its adversary and incapable of maneuvering out of the way of harm, can certainly be defeated.

A life form is another matter. A life form has certain responsibilities to ensure its continued health and it has a variety of skills to assist in gaining its needs. Its adversary has a bigger problem due to the fact that the life can think and probably due whatever the adversary can do and if not, can probably think of a way to not have to. The adversary’s advantage is simply that he is willing to be aggressive while the life is not.

But for every action taken, a cost is paid. While the adversary is being aggressive, it is NOT doing something. What would the life have been doing instead of being aggressive? Any rational life would be re-enforcing its potential to stay alive, with or without an aggressor around.

What keeps anything going is called “momentum”. It involves mass and velocity - energy. Every life has certain needs. The rational life is pursuing those needs and at a optimal or maximum effort. But in the case of the adversary, what need has he to be aggressive? By being aggressive, he is necessarily not attending with maximum potential to his true needs.

Most, if not all aggressors do not have a clear vision of their true needs, else they wouldn’t be bothering with being aggressive. If they had that clear vision, they would be attending to it… and not aggressing.

So that gives a clue as to what kind of momentum a life must engage in, in order to ensure their own continuance and thus their own needs. An aggressor is a danger to the life. The life has the responsibility to prevent dangers. So the common, unthinking solution is simply to become aggressive and kill or disable the would be aggressor. But if the rule is that “thou shall not kill”, disabling is the only option. Any person is disabled from doing something if they see no incentive for doing it. Thus it is an obligation for every life, to disable aggressive behavior through the means of making it very clear what any aggressor’s truer needs really are.

By gaining momentum (through a variety of means) toward making the true needs of others very clear to them, aggression simply stops. It loses its own momentum due to the lack of incentive which is due to the incentive to do other things that are clearly seen as more profitable.

But what if your aggressor is simply insane? What if he is very blind to his truer needs. What if, despite efforts, you cannot give sight to the blind? There are three concerns to make into priorities;

  1. Prevent people from getting into that state (health issue).
  2. Improve on your ability to make things clear (philosophy and communication issue).
  3. Create a barrier of some kind between yourself and the aggressor (guile and tools issue).

Ensure not only the harmony within yourself, but also the harmony of all immediately around you and you could literally never perish… “Inclusive Self-Harmony”. Do it at such a fast pace that you outrun the entropy involved, and there will be no aggressor to worry about.

Yes, you ARE your brother’s keeper just as much as you are your own, else you suffer his insanity.

Clarify, Verify, and Instill the Perception of Hopes and Threats that Optimize the Momentum of Inclusive Self-Harmony.

That is the very spirit that has kept you alive since the moment you were conceived, despite what confusions your mind and heart have fallen into. Attend to it consciously. Try helping that which has been keeping you alive. Else you might not live to regret it.

James, can you give an example of this harmonic principle operating in the real world, perhaps a historical example? rebecca

Two brothers went out into the world. One with the intent of stirring as much trouble as possible and the other intended to avoid as much trouble as possible. Need you ask which got on the news and recorded in the history books?

But there are a few off the top of my head who inadvertently managed to become known enough to be documented, usually quite sometime after the fact. Maybe you have heard of one of them; Moses, Lao Tze, Gautama, Aristotle, Jesus?

But remember, you asked specifically for a solution to the remainder of the problem. You are living in the aftermath of partial solutions. The element that has been left out is the emphasis of my answer… Momentum.

Ever heard the expression, “I don’t have time for this”? Keep them busy doing what they actually need to do. The trick is to make sure that it is your potential aggressor saying it as often as you if not even more so.

If you don’t keep them very busy, you get this;

Often stealth is required… in which case wherever there is trouble is where you are not. But then you miss getting into the books… Oh well, there are better ways to survive death anyway. You didn’t ask how to get famous. :sunglasses:

Of course you don’t hear about them until they have had a modicum of success and today are more known for their corporate names; IBM, Ford, GE, EDS, Monsanto, SPLC, DHS, and so on including thousands of small businesses. Ever wonder why they called it “busi-ness”? #-o

Anywhere humans are involved, psychology are at play.

Humans no matter what they do or think will always be subject to human nature, ofcause extremely few can put themselves above the nature of humans, but that will only last till the next person takes over and give in to the human weaknesses.

Is this why smithys hold a special place, sometimes good, sometimes bad, in ancient mythologies? Was the fire that Prometheus brought to mankind (and Amirani before him, in Colchian mythos) used for metalworking weapons? Of course, lucifer=light bearer.

Pacifism is for suckers.

That Carlin quote is Bunk too, yeah pacifists get killed but so do people who advocate violence, anybody can get killed the only differance is these guys made everyone feel warm and fuzzy (Except for Lincoln and Malcom X) so when they get shot people find it more abhorrent.

It’s just the kind of skewered thinking that leads to misanthropists like George Carlin.

I imagine there were 3 reasons for that.

  1. Smithies are a bit like real scientists in that they are typically apolitical
  2. They are essential for creating the weapons regardless of what side you are on (again much like the scientists of today)
  3. They are a bit intimidating due to getting more practice swinging a hammer than any solder (the scientist has intellectual skills).

Today’s “smithy” is a scientist.

The fire of Prometheus was a social fire, more recently referred to as “faggoting”.
Lucifer’s light was an issue of “dark light”, the light concerning hidden ways to get what you want.
That is a different issue than “pure light” that exposes all things, hidden or not.
And still different from “holy light” exposing only what is good for life at that moment.

I think false pacifism is for suckers. That is, people who have not even tried to make peace with themselves who go to anti-war rally’s and make so much annoying ruckus that any person who would be trying to meditate at one of these rally’s might go ballistic and start beating the shit out of people.

Real pacifists like Jesus Christ and the Buddha imo are not suckers at all. To me, a “real” pacifist understands the violent nature of man and practices peace regardless. He might know that he may very well be slaughtered, but he has made peace with this. In essence, he has made peace with the reality of war, but does not partake in it. He is no idealist.

Thats fine if people wish to practice individual pacifism.

It’s societal pacifism I think is stupid, irresponsible and unrealistic.

Although Gandhi was a pacifist, he did write that if the practical choice was between violence and injustice, settling for injustice was cowardice. I wonder if Gandhi would have been so successful in India if not for the violent movements contemporary with him.

I’m not convinced that absolute pacifism is viable, that “teeth” aren’t needed. If there are historical examples in which absolute pacifism worked, unaided, I’d be interested in learning about them.

Pacifism is an indirect, unrealized attempt to resist the violent logic of the domain of the animal-world by, instead of resisting with force and therefore on the very level of this domain itself, rather replacing this logic with something higher, more derivative of it, a negation of the natural world and its logic of “will to power”.

These attempts have not failed. They are not “meant” to succeed, if by succeed we mean to finally do away with the animal-world in which most of humanity still dwells. Rather pacifism’s success lies in keeping open this idea of transcendence, keeping it alive until enough humans finally understand, and give birth to a new historical momentum, a “tide of reason” that will finally sweep away the old world forever.

Every pacifist is, knowingly or not, a martyr for the future.


I agree with this. The desire to spread pacifism everywhere is antithetical to the nature of genuinely living a “passive” mode of existence. Passivity is not aggressively spreading an ideology so that ideology shall one day take over the world. The nature of passivity is to simply not bother with even engaging in that kind of activity. It is a mode of living for certain indivuals who need it. (I myself might be one of them. I can’t say I know for sure). As an ideology alone it’s rather useless.

Good thought.

I’d like to see Ghandi’s shit fly with Nazis. Maybe Pacifism has a chance against a civil and humane country like Britain, but when your enemies ONLY want to defeat you, its a stupid idea.

Gandhi said that non-violence could work in India, but not everywhere. If the choice is between injustice and violent action, Gandhi wrote that to passively accept injustice is cowardice.