|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Peace or War
#19381944 - 01/07/14 11:24 AM (10 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Someone was talking about their 'velvet revolution' in one of the other forums, thought I'd bring the debate out here.
I prefer violent revolution, peace solves nothing. If someone holds you hostage in your home, kill them, don't ask for mercy and don't give it. Its the same on a national level.
American revolution French revolution 2 Russian revolutions Workers rights, Unions, Child labor laws
vs
Indian "independence" (still hand in glove a colony of England, which is ironic considering this is the role-model for peaceful revolution and it was an absolute failure for civic India, even Gandhi considered it a failure) Black American Civil Rights (fell quite a bit short of desegregation when you consider the massive discrimination against blacks in this country)
Violence works, Begging your oppressor doesn't
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Well neither work ultimately. But we would soon have the NWO in place if we follow your recommendation. Winner take all.
And because I live in likely the strongest country I'm willing to give it a try.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
|
It hasn't happened yet and this whole 'velvet revolution' bs has only been around a few decades. If there is a hegemonized one nation rule, in my opinion it would come through the mental castration of the masses. The more passive the population becomes (reference to "solving" everything without violence), the more hegemonized things will become imo.
That could even be a good thing, but history as well as current events have made me skeptical.
Edited by Repertoire89 (01/07/14 12:07 PM)
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
|
What is your metric for success in matters of revolution?
There may be arrangements in which nonviolent resistance is effective in achieving some end, and where violence would only perpetuate the problem and lend credence to the oppressors' position.
Can you cite Ghandi's opinion that the revolution was a failure for civic India?
It's a sticky subject all around. People provoked to violence will act out accordingly. Do as thou wilt, etc.
I think it takes quite a self-aware individual to apply violence as a means to end violence, and stop the trend in themselves at that point. And there's no accounting for how the violence may reverberate beyond them.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Peace or War [Re: DisoRDeR] 1
#19382330 - 01/07/14 12:56 PM (10 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DisoRDeR said:
Can you cite Ghandi's opinion that the revolution was a failure for civic India?
That originates from the newspaper he ran, as well as quotes from those around him (referenced biographically). Having trouble finding it now though, and really don't feel like looking further so I would just disregard the statement.
Quote:
What is your metric for success in matters of revolution?
In the sense of civil war, one can look at the American or French Revolutions. In both instances the monarchy was expelled along with archaic civic structures in favor of civic structures which would not have been possible through compromise.
The measure for success would be improvement in quality of life and/or safety. Expecting compassion from someone who lacks compassion, works as well for humans as it would work for gazelle; which ties intimidation in with safety.
Quote:
It's a sticky subject all around. People provoked to violence will act out accordingly. Do as thou wilt, etc.
I think it takes quite a self-aware individual to apply violence as a means to end violence, and stop the trend in themselves at that point. And there's no accounting for how the violence may reverberate beyond them.
Agree completely. Violence never ends a situation ideally and often provokes further complications (retribution / replacing one asshole with another). There's a point where in my own thinking it becomes worth-while however, both personally and involving groups of people.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Pondering which is better could be largely rhetorical but technology is the wild card. Nobody wants to die in violent revolution but it happens when it becomes the better looking option.
Nothing I've seen really indicates a deviation from the pattern. The real question to my mind is whether the technological disparity will nullify such opportunities. A nation geared for international war and domestic peace can be brought down from within, but emerging technologies could change that in a very short period of time and much of that technology is already on the drawing board, being tested and is even available though not currently in place to the level needed to insure permanent hegemony. Once we get in so deep there's no getting out through traditional means.
The future's too bright to see, at least for a layman like me and I suspect even technocrats in high places.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Peace or War [Re: Rahz]
#19382443 - 01/07/14 01:25 PM (10 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Well the idea is more general violence than specifically revolution, but
I don't think technology would nullify the opportunity for a revolution, if a movement is large enough to gain traction then the military would be divided as well. As in the American Civil War (Jackson, Jefferson, whole states up in arms etc) or the French Revolution (the King of France's own guards joined the revolt if I remember correctly). What war will look like is a whole other idea
|
absols
Stranger

Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
phonetically, war sound like victory, we are, and peace like pee in plural pees ..
intuitively I will go with war .. peace is a lie environment of plural different present forces while in war, the idea is for one present to be true by weakening different others
in truth, it is impossible to be different ones we can be different freedoms, but than objective present existence must be true, so not some powers of one force that work for a time only..
how many freedoms are willing to respect and support objective rights to be positively ?? none of course .. that is why there cant be but wars, in meaning to destroy some powerful ones
why would a powerful one accept to loose his powers or forces ?? there cant be a reason for that ..
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Peace or War [Re: absols]
#19382565 - 01/07/14 01:49 PM (10 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
if a movement is large enough to gain traction then the military would be divided as well.
Yes but even that can be made to not work like it has in the past. The possibility of military coups is real and thus must be planned for. Technology for every eventuality is only a matter of time, but as I said it's difficult to see how things will play out prior to that singularity.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
|
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Quote:
DisoRDeR said:
Can you cite Ghandi's opinion that the revolution was a failure for civic India?
That originates from the newspaper he ran, as well as quotes from those around him (referenced biographically). Having trouble finding it now though, and really don't feel like looking further so I would just disregard the statement.
I'm curious to read his reflections on the success or failure of his revolution, as he was an activist for many years and died before the dust really settled, if it ever did at all. They got a new system of government, but India/Pakistan/Bangladesh still have a lot of conflict. Maybe I'll do a bit of digging on this as well.
Quote:
Violence never ends a situation ideally and often provokes further complications (retribution / replacing one asshole with another). There's a point where in my own thinking it becomes worth-while however, both personally and involving groups of people.
In mine too, though there have only been a few occasions where it's reached that point for me, and none recently. I'm careful to keep my hero fantasy in check when faced with aggression.
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
Do you think that the USA is no longer a colony of Britain? I recall reading that, at the time, the idea was that Americans would be free of getting dragged into Old World conflicts as long as they could keep the covert societies from taking control again. How did that work out?
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Peace or War [Re: DisoRDeR]
#19385317 - 01/07/14 09:48 PM (10 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DisoRDeR said:
I'm curious to read his reflections on the success or failure of his revolution, as he was an activist for many years and died before the dust really settled, if it ever did at all. They got a new system of government, but India/Pakistan/Bangladesh still have a lot of conflict. Maybe I'll do a bit of digging on this as well.
He was definitely conflicted on the subject, especially in regards to Pakistan. As much as I dislike the guy, and as little respect I have for him as an intellectual, he was an interesting person to study.
Quote:
viktor said: Do you think that the USA is no longer a colony of Britain? I recall reading that, at the time, the idea was that Americans would be free of getting dragged into Old World conflicts as long as they could keep the covert societies from taking control again. How did that work out?
Well anything on that subject is wild speculation, a part of me thinks that the US may well be a colony of England. The bank of England being in a similar position here as the East India company was in India. Wouldn't bet any serious money on that conspiracy though, just idle thoughts.
Do you think the English let America go? Without bribing out the politicians and important political/business figures (1st generation? 2nd generation? etc) or financially entangling the nation? Could be either way, there were some serious conflicts going on in Europe and elsewhere at the time to keep them distracted.
|
|