Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Sunday, June 26, 2005

he disrespects more peaceful ways...

Young Douglas is a naughty boy. And a condescending one as well.

So I've decided to stop feeding him traffic on his blog and to drag him, kicking and screaming if necessary, over to this blog if he wants to continue with his ill-informed put-downs of pacifism meretriciously masquerading as genuine debate.

Here on my blog I feel much freer to bitchslap the little pinko commie bastard when he misbehaves. He does, after all, advocate violence, so he ought to be enjoying this... ;-)

To save you a trip over to his blog, I'll now deconstruct his latest feeble effort over here. Ready? OK, here goes...

He holds up the death of Rachel Corrie as evidence of a "fundamental flaw" in pacifism. He suggests by this that if pacifists get killed there is a flaw in pacifism. He couldn't be more wrong. I have no idea where he got such a distorted view of what pacifism is all about. In fact, I would argue that by killing Corrie, the Israeli regime lost a huge amount of support from the rest of the world and that her death brought a huge amount of damaging attention upon what the Israeli occupation was/is really doing. I assert that it did huge damage to the Israeli cause. Much more so than any suicide bomber's cowardly attack on innocent Israeli civilians.

I would argue, that whilst Corrie's death was most tragic and regrettable, it was by no means in vain. By killing Corrie, the IDF discredited itself and the Israeli cause immensely, and brought a huge mountain of negative publicity upon itself. Whereas, every suicide bomber actually strengthens the Israelis' cause and their determination to fight, as well as winning them sympathy from some misguided quarters. Therefore, if anything, Corrie's death was a hundred times more effective and damaging to Israel than a suicide bomber's attack.

One of the strongest weapons of pacifism is that of public opinion. The more pacifists get killed or mistreated, the more the tide of public opinion swings away from the oppressors/aggressors and towards the pacifists' resistance.

Conversely, armed struggle provides the oppressor with justification for violent retaliation and the means to demonise the members of the resistance. It is counterproductive in the sense that it gets huge numbers of people killed before a "victory" is achieved.

Here's a little thought experiment: The armed resistance against American aggression in Vietnam cost the Vietnamese people 3,000,000 (that's three million) dead bodies. In America (and Australia) the propaganda surrounding the deaths of our own soldiers convinced our people long enough for this terrible death toll to be exacted upon the Vietnamese (and Cambodians, and Laotians).

However (and this is the thought experiment) if the Vietnamese resistance had been kept totally pacifist, i.e. human masses of peaceful protestors gridlocking the places where the Americans tried to go, surrounding American bases with peaceful protestors; and if those protestors did not in any way harm the Americans, and if all they did was to refuse to budge and just keep up the chant "Yankee Go Home !!!" day after day, week after week, what could the Americans have done, and how soon would they have had to do it?

Sure, they could fire into the crowds. They could kill hundreds, maybe thousands. But as the world found out about it, and they would have, global outrage at such a monstrous injustice would have forced the Yanks to piss off within months (not ten years as it was with the war) and if (let's say) the number of innocent, peaceful protestors murdered by the Americans had gotten as high as 30,000 (and such a figure would have constituted a Human Rights attrocity of such proportions that America would have been promptly and successfully prosecuted in The Hague) this number would still have been only 1/100th of the number of Vietnamese killed by the Americans in that war.

So, I wonder if Douglas can tell me why he thinks armed struggle (war) is better than nonviolent resistance (peace).

One way, you instantly and demonstrably turn the aggressor into a murdering monster, whereas the other way, the aggressor can justify their violence.

One way, some people will get murdered, whereas the other way many many more times that number will surely die.

One way, the aggression cannot be maintained for very long (usually only months), whereas the other way the conflict can, and generally does, go on for many years.

I argue that Douglas has not yet even begun to grasp the devastating effect that properly planned and executed peaceful people power can have.

He certainly has not (all of his obfuscations aside) demonstrated any fundamental flaw in pacifism at all...

Ironically and, dare I say, disingenuously, he expresses anger at Corrie's death, yet he would apparently gladly recruit, motivate, train, arm, and dispatch thousands, nay hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of politcal killers (whom he would call "freedom fighters" to die for his questionable "cause" and thereby also subject the civilian population to a vastly protracted period in which millions would be "collaterally" killed by both sides. Can you see the inconsistency in his rhetoric yet?

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only need another three million to stop the communists and things would be peachy.

June 26, 2005 5:56 AM  
Blogger The Editor said...

Theo! Good to see you here again!

But nah, I disagree with your view of the problem. It's the same view which tricked me into believing the propaganda that had me go to Vietnam to kill communists.

The problem is not communism. The problem is authoritarianism and totalitarianism (the former leading to the latter). Communism is merely an economic theory. It's the idea that imposing it and enforcing it is the way to go that's the problem.

You can have the world's most wonderful idea, but if you have to kill people to impose it, and if after that, you have to kill, torture and incarcerate people who disagree with this wonderful idea, then you've lost the plot, or your idea ain't so wonderful anyway.

The communist loonies do it, but so do the capitalist loonies.

I don't believe in fighting looniness with looniness. I believe in fighting looniness with sanity and reason.

I don't believe in fighting violence with violence, I believe in fighting violence with peace.

Communication is the answer. You can only educate and motivate the masses through communication.

But communicating violence only leads to violence. It teaches violence. It's authoritarian and it's only used by authoritarians i.e. control freaks. It's that way which leads to totalitarianism. It's the wrong way.

Example is the most powerful form of leadership/teaching. Violent examples teach violence, peaceful examples teach peace. You can't teach peace through war. Peace fucks war every time, and vice versa.

Here endeth the sermon...

June 26, 2005 10:28 AM  
Blogger The Editor said...

You raise a crucial point, Pat.

Yes, media exposure is an essential part of the sort of actions I have in mind.

We're talking The Seven Ps here, Pat: - Properly Priorly Planned Peaceful People Power Protests.

They would not be feeble little events easily quashed and suppressed. They would be massive. If we didn't have the numbers, we would recruit (and train) until we did. I'm talking about something like a Pacifist Army here, Pat. They would be disciplined committed pacifists professionally managed by a committed pacificst leadership. You do understand what I mean by commitment, don't you Pat?

There would be so much video coverage it would make your eyes water. The news would go out through hundreds of media outlets, both mainstream, alternative and freelance.

Suppression of information would be impossible or the events would not take place.

Coordinators, marshalls and other key personnel would all be committed pacifists and fully trained in nonviolent protest coordination and management. Hot-heads and those who
have even the slightest notion of justifying violent responses would not be part of the organisation.

You said What would be the motivation for someone to die silently and unkown to the world? Exactly! Video of any and all acts of violence visited upon the protestors would be splattered across the world by a well managed media/PR machine. This is the 21st century.

Properly Priorly Planned Peaceful People Power Protests are the most devastating political tool there is. But it does require a certain critical mass in order to be effective. Building up to the critical mass is the recruitment/training phase and not the protest action phase.

I don't think there's anyone in this country doing this level of organisation - yet. But that's what I'm hoping to invoke. Call me a dreamer... :-)

June 28, 2005 12:40 AM  
Blogger The Editor said...

Pat, you really must read more reputable works than Wikipedia.

Diogenes was an optimist. Why else would he have gone around daily for years with his lantern, hoping to find an honest man?

June 28, 2005 12:30 PM  
Blogger The Editor said...

Oh, I nearly forgot to reply to this, Pat: Without the draft there would have been no protests..

Oh, really? Do you know how many people protested around the world on the eve of (and immediately following) the Iraq invasion? In Australia alone the anti-war protests in that fortnight totalled more than a million people. Care to hazard a guess how many people protested worldwide during that period?

D'oh, there was no draft, Pat.

Here endeth your draft thesis.

June 28, 2005 12:48 PM  
Blogger The Editor said...

Pat, the linked article was chosen for it's humorous nature. I was having a laugh.

I was one of those protestors you refer to as wankers. I think on that note we'll call it quits. Thanks for visiting.

June 28, 2005 6:15 PM  
Blogger The Editor said...

Pat, you're right. I'm a snarky old fart.

And you're right about everything else as well of course.

You've found Absolute Truth and you no longer need to question anything. You've seen The Light.

Greed and selfishness should indeed be built into the way we "do business".

The strong should prevail and the weak should perish.

Blind belief should replace logic and reason.

Bigotry should be institutionalised in the form of war-justifying religions. Onward Christian Soldiers, and all that jazz.

People who protest against war, injustice, selfishenss and greed are wankers.

And from our discourse over at Vieux Cordelier, I deduce that you reckon that:

Noam Chomsky is a wanker.
Gore Vidal is a wanker.
John Pilger is a wanker.
Peter Singer is a wanker.

And no doubt, Daniel Ellsberg, Neil Sheehan, William Blum, Clyde Prestowitz, Chalmers Johnson, Andrew J. Bacevich, James Bamford, Howard Zinn, Greg Palast, Joel Bakan, Jared Diamond, Tom Segev, Christian Parenti and Edward W. Said are all card-carrying wankers as well.

Next you'll be telling me Jesus was a wanker too.

In fact, Pat, it's becoming clear to me that anyone who doesn't share your favourite brand of bigotry is a wanker.

You'll excuse me if I can find no reasons to bother trying to swap ideas with you. I'm sure you can realise now what a huge waste of time this would be for both of us.

June 29, 2005 5:26 AM  
Blogger The Editor said...

Nah, you're not a wanker, Pat. You've just allowed yourself to be seduced by the all-pervasive propaganda of American capitalist totalitarianism. You have gone over to the dork side of the farce I'm afraid. You can come back to the fold anytime you wish... ;-)

Remember, if Jesus were around today, he'd be either a socialist or a communist. He certainly wouldn't be a capitalist. Wanna join the Church of Jesus, Pat? ;-)

June 29, 2005 11:43 PM  
Blogger The Editor said...

Oh, and another thing, Pat, have your read The Gospel According To Saint Gerry yet?

June 29, 2005 11:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

==========
<<<<< Home
==========