World War III

[Turtle]

Is World War III on the horizon?

 

Simple answer...no.

* Russia is now, well...Russia & not the Soviet Union. They have enough to do sorting out & implementing their own version of democracy & free markets.

* China...same thing. Chinese generals & military officials own most of the big businesses & have more to gain economically by avoiding world war & working out their version of capitalism.

* The only people I see world-wide who hope for or try to foment a world war are the religious fundamentalists. They want their armageddon.

 

Just Say No

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[sebbysteiny]

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think Syria is(was until recently) involved in all aspects of Hezbollah's day to day operations.Of course Syria admits to only moral support.

 

As far as I'm aware, Syria also havn't actually denied providing other support (military, financial, logistical). If this were a state secret, it rivals that of Britney Spears not being a genuine virgin.

 

Simple answer...no.

* Russia is now, well...Russia & not the Soviet Union. They have enough to do sorting out & implementing their own version of democracy & free markets.

* China...same thing. Chinese generals & military officials own most of the big businesses & have more to gain economically by avoiding world war & working out their version of capitalism.

* The only people I see world-wide who hope for or try to foment a world war are the religious fundamentalists. They want their armageddon.

 

Not to mention that America would totally anahilate the conventional armies of the rest of the World with almost no difficulty at all thanks to stealth technology. Unless a nation is planning a nuclear holocaust it is suicide to attack America with an army.

[IDMclean]

Your a Pascifist. Fair enough. Respect to you. However, what would you do if Britain was attacked by Iran? Would you also plead with 1938 Britain to surrender to Nazi Germany?

 

You make the mistake of assumeption, without clear analysis. I am not a pacifist. There are three ways to meet oppression and only one is moral. Acquiescence would be of the class "pacifism". It is not a moral path.

 

Infact, world war II was made all the worse by that path. When one rejects that they have power, they also reject that they have responsibility, as the two concepts go hand in hand.

 

The second path is Violent Resistence. This is not a moral path.

 

As long as there is violence there shall never be true peace. War itself is an expression of this. War is not about who is right or wrong, it's only about who's left. War, except in it's modern meaning means one of two things, Genocide, or Acquiescence.

 

The Third path is non-violent resistence. This is the only moral path. It is not to be mistaken for Pacifism. Nor is it to be mistaken for passive aggression, as it is active.

 

One fights, but not in the convential sense. Where as the first path gives into the despair of oppression, and the second one allows their anger, and desire for retribution to cloud their moral judgement, the third path, the balanced path, refuses to sit by idlely and give into despair, and refuses to compermise one's moral righteousness for the sake of petty retribution. This of course is not to say that it is not without it's costs. All that is worth having has a price, and more often than not the price is not something money can buy.

 

Napoleon had the bright idea to attack russia, and you know what? Russia won. Mostly by non-violent resistence. Where ever Napoleon's armies went, the russians were no where to be seen, and like wise their supplies were no where to be seen. Ultimately, in a battle of Attrition, russia won. This is not to say it was without cost, nor that it was ultimately without blood shed, but it was far more moral than aggressive warfare.

 

War takes two to tango, and if one's not willing to dance then it just don't work.

 

Never underestimate hate. Demonisation, brainwashing and hate will work on anyone, anywhere, any time and against any group as long as that person is not aware of the hate tactics and sometimes not even that is enough. It is widespread amongst the Arab states and the first stage of hate is love so you don't even notice the hate being fed into you even at boiling point. If you are brainwashed into hatred correctly, you should be thinking you are making world a better place for those you love. However the truth is your mind has become as warped as the deeds you commit. Luckily, just as you can distort an undistored mind, one can undistort a distorted mind, but it's almost impossible on a mass scale without massive regional occupation and re-education.

 

Your word 'anger' and my word 'hate' seem similar except your choice gives the terrorists a level of logical legitimacy that they absolutely do not deserve.

 

 

Anger - A strong feeling of displeasure or hostility.

 

hate

1.

1. To feel hostility or animosity toward.

2. To detest.

2. To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.

 

Hate or hatred is an emotion of intense revulsion, distaste, enmity, or antipathy for a person, thing, or phenomenon. It is generally attributed to cause a desire to avoid, restrict, remove, or destroy the hated object. The emotion is the opposite of love.

 

Hatred can be based on fear of its object, or past negative consequences of dealing with that object. Hatred is often described as the opposite of love or friendship; others, such as Elie Wiesel, consider the opposite of love to be indifference. People may feel conflicting and complicated emotions or thoughts involving hate, such as love-hate relationship.

 

Often "hate" is used casually to describe things one merely dislikes, such as a particular style of architecture, a certain climate, one's job, or some particular food.

 

"Hate" or "hatred" is also used to describe feelings of prejudice, bigotry or condemnation (see shunning) against a person, or a group of people, such as racism, and intense religious or political prejudice. The term hate crime is used to designate crimes committed out of hatred in this sense.

 

Hate is often a precursor to violence. A populace is sometimes trained via political propaganda to hate some nation or political regime. Hatred remains a major motive behind armed conflicts such as war and terrorism.

 

Our words are similar in origin and meaning.

 

The opposite of anger is, sadness or dissapointment. Where as you choose hate, a more complex emotion, I choose Anger as it is a closer, more broad and simplistic emotion.

 

Anger is a tertiary emotion, I can say "I am angery." and it is a valid sentence, though it does not communicate, in and of itself what I am angery about, or lead to a resolution of my anger. That is to say it is a generalized template.

 

Hate is very similar, though I would have to do more research to give an in-depth analysis of what it is that makes for the different words. On surface glance, I would say that Hate is more specific. One can't simply state "I hate." It must be targeted, and therefore makes me think it is a secondary emotion. "I hate facsism." would be a valid sentence, and gives a clear indication of what is the source of the emotion.

 

As for Demonisiation, propaganda, and all of that? "Brainwashing". To achieve a given fanatic effect. Takes two to tango. One can not simply take some one aside and force them to be one way or another. It doesn't work that way, to my knowledge. One has to have impedus to be "open" to the process of brainwashing. That is, one has to already be open to the emotion of anger, to be provoked into righteous fury. Therefore, Propaganda and such is a symptom, not a cause, in and of itself.

 

You do have a large chunk of the puzzle, though I think. Love is a major player in this equation. Love would infact be the driving force, as DeMause Theorizes in his Psychogenic Theorm of History. Love of family, friends, culture, country of percieved group-individuals and the desire to see them happy, would be provokation enough to allow for a "brainwashing" enviroment.

 

"If you die for Allah, for your country, your friends and family shall be saved, and you as a martyr shall be loved in death as much or more so than you are in life, by all who follow the way of Allah."

 

The desire to protect your group, is great and the love expressed there of is admirable, but it is delusional ultimately.

 

:) What the world needs now,

is love, sweet love.

It's the only thing there's just to little of...:D

 

-Fools are always sure there's greener grass just beyond the horizon, the wise are always surprised when the fools are right.

KickAssClown, Chin up and Laughing.

[paigetheoracle]

Kickass - liked the Russian history bit! Makes me think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail "Run Away!"

[sebbysteiny]

You make the mistake of assumeption, without clear analysis. I am not a pacifist. There are three ways to meet oppression and only one is moral.

 

The second path is Violent Resistence. This is not a moral path.

 

The Third path is non-violent resistence. This is the only moral path. It is not to be mistaken for Pacifism. Nor is it to be mistaken for passive aggression, as it is active.

 

Napoleon had the bright idea to attack russia, and you know what? Russia won. Mostly by non-violent resistence. Where ever Napoleon's armies went, the russians were no where to be seen, and like wise their supplies were no where to be seen. Ultimately, in a battle of Attrition, russia won. This is not to say it was without cost, nor that it was ultimately without blood shed, but it was far more moral than aggressive warfare.

I agree those are the only three options available. However I would say that a pacifist can also pick your third means. A pacifist is simply someone who believes violent resistance can never be justified.

 

Sometimes the tactic is militarily useful as Russia discovered. This happens when you cannot beat the enemy militarily so one must resort to a war of attriction. But it comes at a cost: vaste amounts of economic damage and a long term presence of enemy troops on your soverign territory. Hanable also was beaten by such means.

 

However each situation is different. We could not have given non-voilent resistance against Hitler. He would have simply invaded Britain, installed a pupet government and taken control of Europe. Instead violent resistance was the only possible means.

 

But no tactic is more 'moral' than any of the others: only some are more effective in some situations than others.

 

I am a great fan of non-violent resistance but it can only work against an enemy with some kind of moral decency whereby you can rely that troops will not shoot all such resisters dead. Eg it works against modern democratic rulers as Martin Luther King and Gandi discovered to great effect. But the Sheites in Iraq found Saddam Huissain immune to such resistance and it would not have helped the Jews in the holocaust or the Hutus in the Ruandan Genocide.

 

Violent resistance is less effective against democracies because they are also usually militarily superior but non-violent resistance will be enough to make any genuine cause win.

 

So your options are not any more or less moral: just better in some situations and worse in others.

 

War takes two to tango, and if one's not willing to dance then it just don't work.

Couldn't agree less. It takes just one to pick a fight. This works on the school playground as much as it does to international politics. This is especially so in the Middle East where restraint is mistaken for weakness and only serves to encourage more violence.

 

Your word 'anger' and my word 'hate' seem similar except your choice gives the terrorists a level of logical legitimacy that they absolutely do not deserve.

 

Our words are similar in origin and meaning.

 

The opposite of anger is, sadness or dissapointment. Where as you choose hate, a more complex emotion, I choose Anger as it is a closer, more broad and simplistic emotion.

Your right our words are similar but as I said, I think anger implies some level of logical legitimacy whist hate does not. Clearly one can hate for a genuine reason but reasoning is not essential like it is in anger.

 

I'll give an example of where I think the two words differ.

 

One can say 'I hate blacks' but it is almost meaningless to say 'I am angry with blacks' since the latter meaning is fundamentally different and implies some kind of action taken by the entire black community that is responsible for the anger.

 

As for Demonisiation, propaganda, and all of that? "Brainwashing". To achieve a given fanatic effect. Takes two to tango. One can not simply take some one aside and force them to be one way or another. It doesn't work that way, to my knowledge. One has to have impedus to be "open" to the process of brainwashing. That is, one has to already be open to the emotion of anger, to be provoked into righteous fury. Therefore, Propaganda and such is a symptom, not a cause, in and of itself.

Our strongest disagreement.

One can not simply take some one aside and force them to be one way or another.

Your right, you cannot FORCE someone but you can PURSUADE them. A great example of hate was provided by NKT in my "Islamic Terror: the solution" thread. Read it and ask yourself if one must be open to loving terrorists to get sucked into its tempting madness. Then look at my break down of how the argument works and how it plants hate into the subconcious by stealth.

 

That is, one has to already be open to the emotion of anger, to be provoked into righteous fury. Therefore, Propaganda and such is a symptom, not a cause, in and of itself.

Everybody is open to hate (I assume u meant hate) if they were born human and that hate can be harnessed by good propaganda. Propaganda and government created arguments of hate ARE the cause in and of themselfs. The hate is the unavoidable symptom.

 

"If you die for Allah, for your country, your friends and family shall be saved, and you as a martyr shall be loved in death as much or more so than you are in life, by all who follow the way of Allah."

 

The desire to protect your group, is great and the love expressed there of is admirable, but it is delusional ultimately.

A great example of how normal people can be seduced by a delusional reality. Would you say no to a quick and easy solution to VIP treatment in heaven for you and your family if you believed in god? If you do, fanatical murder should not be too hard to sell.

[IDMclean]

However each situation is different. We could not have given non-voilent resistance against Hitler. He would have simply invaded Britain, installed a pupet government and taken control of Europe. Instead violent resistance was the only possible means.

 

This is conjecture. One can not say with any kind of conviction that this is truth, as it is not backed by proof. No one even concidered the possibility of non-violent resistence. Also, Morally, and practically the world had already failed to address the issues which led to the two world wars. Both were, arguably, in essesence caused by acquiescence. Silence begets silence and apathy begets apathy.

 

Now Seeby, I have read and followed the Islamic solution that you discussed. I ask if you have followed my thread regarding DeMause, or if you have read the link that I posted in your thread regarding the childhood and psychogenic origin of terrorism?

 

Your right, you cannot FORCE someone but you can PURSUADE them.

 

Force and Pursaude are similar once again. What I am saying is that brainwashing does not work on some one who is capable of resisting.

 

My father taught me something, when some one says they "can't", short of physical limitation, what they really mean, often, is that the won't. which in turn taught me a simple fact, or fact as I see it. One is in control of their actions, always. There maybe some exceptions to this rule, but they are the exception not the rule.

 

Anger can not be targeted. It's a tertiary emotion. Frustration is a secondary emotion, and thus can be targeted. "I am frustrated with the world" is a valid sentence. "I am angery at blacks" is valid also, I suppose, though like the sentence above it fails to describe properly what there is to do about that. Blanket statments, if I remember. "I feel frustrated with the world because I feel that it does not accept the peace and harmony that can arise from co-operateration." That would be a completely valid I feel statement. It describes what is wrong and gives an idea as to what needs to be delt with to resolve the issue.

 

Now I have carefully been examining the language that you and I are using to describe our arguements, and I think that our difference is this:

Your argument comes from the stance that people are not responsible for what they do if others convince them of doing it. Correct me if I am wrong.

My arguement come from the stance that people, who have equal power and therefore equal responsiblity, are responsible for their actions no matter what.

 

Further we seem to have a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of brainwashing, or otherwise social conditioning. It is my opinion, based on study into the field, that one can not condition someone to do anything that they would not already do. Social conditioning is really simply just an A-Ok on an action that a person would already take, if it was ok with their peers.

 

"If you die for Allah, for your country, your friends and family shall be saved, and you as a martyr shall be loved in death as much or more so than you are in life, by all who follow the way of Allah."

 

The desire to protect your group, is great and the love expressed there of is admirable, but it is delusional ultimately.

A great example of how normal people can be seduced by a delusional reality. Would you say no to a quick and easy solution to VIP treatment in heaven for you and your family if you believed in god? If you do, fanatical murder should not be too hard to sell.

 

Perhaps you have missed it before Sebby, but I myself am a martyr, in Ideal at least, that I still sit here drawing breath brings into question the validity of my claim, but the general consenus so far is I am such a being. Now as to the whole VIP treatment? Not really. I would martyr myself because it would get me into heaven despite all the immoral things I have ever done. To die so that another may live is one of the things that forgives all sins.

 

I, myself, have contemplated, nearly to completetion, the action of murder-suicide. From that exploit I discovered how to build a nuclear device from house hold materials, from minimal investment. The entire time that I studied the construction of said device and how I would deploy it, I knew what I was doing and why. At the time I denied that I knew, and I gave myself lies as to why what I was striving for was "ok". Delusions are something that we create within ourselves. No one can make you do anything. even if they physically make you press the button to blow the world to peices, it was their action and their will that did it, and therefore their responsibility.

 

When one claims zero power, they also claim zero responsibility. A martyr, expecially one who seeks revenge in their action, claims power. The power to kill and recognizes within, that the responsibility is that of death. In a delusional way, it is the only moral thing to do when you take the life others, is to you.

 

 

I am unsure, should our Conversation be taken to a different thread, and if so, which one?

[sebbysteiny]

KickAssClown, great last post.

should our Conversation be taken to a different thread

I agree. I'll start a new one called 'anger and hate: the power of Brainwashing'. But your other points can still be dealt with here.

 

However each situation is different. We could not have given non-voilent resistance against Hitler. He would have simply invaded Britain, installed a pupet government and taken control of Europe. Instead violent resistance was the only possible means.

 

This is conjecture. One can not say with any kind of conviction that this is truth, as it is not backed by proof. No one even concidered the possibility of non-violent resistence. Also, Morally, and practically the world had already failed to address the issues which led to the two world wars. Both were, arguably, in essesence caused by acquiescence. Silence begets silence and apathy begets apathy.

 

Now Seeby, I have read and followed the Islamic solution that you discussed. I ask if you have followed my thread regarding DeMause, or if you have read the link that I posted in your thread regarding the childhood and psychogenic origin of terrorism?

 

I present powerful evidence that option 3, non-violent resistance, does not work against those that do not respect human rights. The holocaust: the resistance was almost entirely non-violent. The result: 6 million Jews dead and unimaginable suffering and loss. By the time the Jews learnt that they must fight, it was too late (the Warsaw getto uprising). However, this lesson was well learnt and was responsible for the military dominance Israel now has over a region that would love the opportunity to kill them all.

 

There have also been numerous non-violent resistance movements against the Burmese regime. Each one is brutally supressed and the ring leaders get imprisoned.

 

Non-violence ONLY works with liberal democracies. Ignoring wars of attriction (since wars have been won by direct conduct too), can you give me one example where non-violence has worked against a non liberal democratic regime or one where it has failed against a liberal democracy?

 

 

I think I read your post about the childhood origin of terror but I was not sure what you were trying to prove. Perhaps you could explain. Also, alas, I have not had the fortune to have read your DeMause post. If you tell me what point you wish me to find (or even direct me to a post) I'll be happy to analyse it thouroughly.

[IDMclean]

Well really it's the methodology (of DeMause) that I wish for people, including you Sebby, to read about.

 

Now, my evidence is this:

India was ruled by the british army and in 1916 Ghandi arrived on the scene. in 1947 India became a free nation, seperate from the british empire, due in large part to the actions of it's people, with the teachings of Non-violent resistence at heart. This is contempary to World War I and II.

 

The British Empire was not a democracy at the time. None-The-Less Non-violent resistence assisted (arguably caused) in the independence of India.

 

Now once again I note that War is the result of not meeting the needs of oppressed people in a moral way. Germany went to war for many reasons and one of them was Economic concearns, which were in large part generated by the British empire operating at the time. (I'm not terribly versed in history, so correct me if I am wrong.) We, as a world, failed to help our fellow man and as a result they lashed out in an immoral way. Now if DeMause is correct regarding the Psychogenic theorm of history, then we can view this as a child attempting to get their needs met and failing to get positive attention in a moral way, does "bad" things to get negative attention. Thereby suceeding in getting attention, period. Ultimately I think that Germany walked away from WWII a much better country. Seeing as they no longer have to support an army, and infact can't (not sure on this, but I had heard that it was part of the agreements made at the conclusion of the WWII), they have been able to reallocate their resources into better things (like Tax-payed University for citizens) and restablize their economy.

 

At the conclusion of world war II the world was forced to stop acting in an immoral, imperistic (apathetic) way and address the needs of another country (more infact). This is not to say that it all turned out Ideal, in addressing the needs of one part of the world, I think we perhaps didn't think to address the needs of another part.

 

The end does not justify the means, or rather the effect does not justify the cause. The cause must be jusified for the effect to be seen as moral. This rejects the view of moral relativism, and embraces the view of moral objectivism. Then again I come from the view that says that Violence is wrong, not just physical but any (unwarranted) Violence.

 

The thing is, that Germany is and was a dependent country, like all nations any more. They require the world's support to thrive. Non-violent resistence is the practice of removing support from that which one objects to. The unions being an example of this. When an atrocious act is taken, such as mass murder for instance

 

April 13, 1919 Amritsar massacre ~>379 India British troops led by Brigadier General Reginald Dyer fired 1650 rounds of ammunitions into a crowd of 20,000 people gathered in a garden with its sole exit blocked to prevent people from escaping.

 

Source: Wikipedia, List of Massacres

 

It is either then justified or not. Justification comes (generally) in the form of reaction. It is a massacre if the people who violence is taken upon do not react in a similarly violent manner. A massacre is never justified. A massacre turns into a mutiny or similar, when those who are victim become oppressor, by reacting in violence. Those who stand by and do not help in the resistence of these immoral acts have choosen the First path, and they have choosen poorly (best imitation of the Knight in Indian jones and the Lost Crusades), in my humble opinion. As I have stated before, silence is agreement without words. The true evil of the world is indifference to the suffering of our fellow man. (check, USA did not involve itself in the second world war until it was attacked and then it likewise reacted with violence... I see a pattern here.)

 

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

 

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

 

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

 

When they came for the Jews,

I did not speak out;

I was not a Jew.

 

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

 

Source: Wikipedia

 

Acquiescence in poetic verse.

 

So what does all this have to do with World War III? Well it's very clear to me that we have a responsibility, which comes with our immense power. We have a responsibility to be the moral ones. To do our best to keep another world war from happening. Not just in Foriegn affairs but in day to day life. What Bush has done is nothing short of incite war. We, as a people of the united states and of the world, have incited this war. We in our silence have accepted it. Violence is never moral, and is only nessessitated when all other methods have been exhausted.

 

That we accept violence as an acceptable, moral, method of problem solving is anathema, in my opinion, to the enlightenment of all man-kind.

 

Gandhi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

 

We have Violence in pure form, nukes. If were playing a game, and the stakes is our future, then by tit-for-tat, we should do only what we wish to be visited upon ourselves in kind. I want green grash and blues skies in my future, I don't know about you.

 

We have the power, and we have the responsibility.

 

-Inciting foolishness

KickAssClown, take some pass it on.

[IDMclean]

Alright, in response to other posters and in attempt to get Racoon's thread back on track.

 

I remember a program on fundamentalism worldwide, by I think it was Richard Dawkins or Jon Ronson, where the host wrote in a preview that he'd been talking 'off-camera' to this radical muslim cleric who was talking about everything in a reasonable, calm, balanced manner but once the camera was on him; he went off in a tyrranical rant that wouldn't allow for interruption or reasoned argument. To me this is attention addiction or politics (egotism) and has nothing at all to do with religion.

 

I have to ask, are you choosing to ignore causuality, or is it that you do not believe in such a thing?

 

Politics, Attention Addicition, and Religion have allot in common. Very similar themes. In all three your attempting to appease some one, or something. Weather it be yourself (as an individual), your group, or your Ficta/Deity.

 

As I have indicated in past posts, anger and the expression thereof is based in desire. What is fundamental human desire? Find the root cause and you can figure out the branch effect. DeMause theorizes Love as fundamental human desire, in it's many permutations. Familial, Parential, Social, Mate, all of them.

 

When one acts in the bad, one gets attention. For me that is clearly the game. You deny me attention when I act good, so I act badly and you give me negative attention. This attention (good or bad) lets me know that you care, that you love me. If you didn't react, that is when I know I have crossed the line. When you stop reacting it shows that you truely don't care.

 

This, I believe, can be applied to any level of social heirarchy. It may mutate and take on additional traits and meanings as it grows, but fundamentally it remains the same.

 

So, collectively, I would say that my answer, in simplified form, to the original question: "Is World War III on the horizon." is this. Do you want it to be?

[sebbysteiny]

I havn't read your [KickAssClown's] full arguments in detail, but I have scanned them. I will study them and reply tomorrow.

 

But I think I can immediately give one point where I will probably still disagree: the idea that non-violent resistance works in all cases better than violent resistance.

 

Your main example is Gandi's non-violent resistance against the British Empire. I have said that this worked because Britain is a liberal democracy and it won't work against tyranny. You correctly pointed out that in 1916, democracy was in its very early days. However Britain was not ruled by power hungry maniacs prepared to do anything at whatever human cost to maintain their rule. Quite simply, in Hitler's Germany and in Saddam Huissain's Iraq, Gandi would have been arrested within weeks and murdered. All other crowds of protest would be brutally suppressed by the police and the ring leaders would also be hung. If this was insufficient the areas where these protestors came from would be attacked with a chemical missile killing hundreds of thousands. The region would then quite definately be quiet and submissive.

[IDMclean]

British Empire:Collapse

 

The Company's rule effectively came to an end exactly a century after its victory at Plassey, when the Indian Mutiny broke out in 1857 which saw many of the Company's Indian sepoys begin an armed uprising against their British commanders, after a period of political unrest triggered by a number of political events. One of the major factors was the Company's introduction of the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle. The paper cartridges containing the gunpowder were lubricated with animal fat, and had to be bitten open before the powder was poured into the muzzle. Eating cow fat was forbidden for the Hindu soldiers, while pig fat was forbidden for the Muslim soldiers. Although it insisted that neither cow fat nor pig fat was being used, the rumour persisted and many sepoys refused to follow their orders and use the weapons. Another factor was the execution of the Indian sepoy Mangal Pandey who was hanged for attacking and injuring his British superiors, possibly out of insult for the introduction of the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle or a number of other reasons. These factors combined with a number of other reasons resulted in the Mutiny, which eventually brought about the end of the British East India Company's regime in India, and instead led to 90 years of direct rule of the Indian subcontinent by Britain, after the British East India Company was dissolved. The period of direct British rule in India is known as the British Raj, when the regions now known as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar would collectively be known as British India.

 

Time peroid of 1801-1922, British Monarchy

 

I would like to correct a misunderstanding. Non-violence gets it's power from international reaction. Also I did not say it was more effective, nessessarily. In the long term I figure it is, but by the measure that most use, the short term that is, it is not as effective as slaughter, torture, rape, pillage and plunder.

 

The British empire during a decent majority of the time span which I am refering to is and was a monarchy, not a liberal democracy, of which NO country that I know of in the world is a democracy. The USA is a republic, for which it stands.

 

What ultimately caught Britian, and forced them to accept the terms of the Indian Independence movement was that they lost international support for their efforts in india. As I mentioned earlier, Non-violence breeds compassion and empathy. When one hears that two armed people shot each other to death it is an "oh well that sucks, maybe they shouldn't have been shooting at each other like dip-sh*ts." reaction. The mutual Violence justifies (psychologically) the old axiom of "an Eye for an Eye". However the reaction changes conciderably when it is an armed man who shoots an unarmed man. In game theory the first example can be said to be equal playing fields, where as the second can be said to be inequal playing fields. Where the player with a gun essentially cheats.

 

Now, it is in the nature of Non-violent to coax the opponent into attempting to cheat, so that the otherwise impartial outside agents will become involved.

 

Apathy here is the silent killer. In past ages it would not have been possible to utilize Non-violent resistence and live. It is only in the moralization, of the advancement of psychoclasses and a growth in empathy that Non-violence becomes a viable tactic.

 

In the case presented, the gasing of the kurds, if I am not mistaken, the world did not react, the failure is not of the Non-violent method but of the outside agents to act. The wrong here is multiplied by the wrong of apathy. Insufficent global, regional, or social empathy.

 

Now here is the true nature of the martyr, not what those bombers are, they are false prophets, and deranged children. True martyrs suffer so that others may live. They make a statement of ultimate empathy, of ultimate love. They will step forward to meet oppression were ever it may grow, irregardless of consequence. They are defenders of the faith, not in god, but in the fundamental of good of human kind. Beacons of hope in the darkest nights.

 

Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.

 

-Hugh Latimer, To his friend Nicholas Ridley, as they were both about to be burned as heretics for their teachings and beliefs outside Balliol College, Oxford (October 16, 1555)

 

The point is to be more moral, to walk to your grave knowing that you did what was right and that the world will know those who have done wrong. Laughing all the way as you go.

 

The Meaning of Success

 

1. To earn the respect of intelligent people and to win the affection of children.

2. To appreciate the beauty in nature and all that surrounds us.

3. To seek out and nurture the best in others.

4. To give the gift of yourself to others without the slightest thought of return, for it is in giving that we receive.

5. To have accomplished a task, whether it be saving a lost soul, healing a sick child, writing a book, or risking your life for a friend.

6. To have celebrated and laughed with great joy and enthusiasm and sung with exaltation.

7. To have hope even in times of despair, for as long as you have hope, you have life.

8. To love and to be loved.

9. To be understood and to understand.

10. To know that even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.

This is the meaning of success.

 

-Anonymous and modified by Ray Serway December, 1989

 

-The power is in the people, not in the armies, nor the politicians.

KickAssClown, just one of the lonely, lovely people.

[paigetheoracle]

Listening to the arguments about brainwashing, one thing is clear to me that 'belief' is what draws us into a conflict and ensures that we A) Pick sides and :hyper: act. Non-violent resistance is the refusal to get drawn into conflict, despite the threats and suffering (violence) this brings. It is saying that I would rather die at your hands than live with blood on mine. This is why oppressors always make examples of the subjugated but never totally wipe them out - they want slaves, obedient to their will. Scorched earth as a policy is the same thing. 'We'd rather risk death than give into you' being the message. That this is so can be found in crime - in horror films, you hear the victim screaming 'No!', never 'Yes!' (If they did it would be consensual and turn into something else like a love story or a comedy, with the villain backing off in confusion because the victim is supposed to be frightened and feel helpless, not assist in their own demise: Where's the thrill in that, for somebody out for vengeance or trying to vent their hatred on the world?):eek2: