Marzo 25, 2003
A man of peace is not a pacifist, a man of peace is simply a pool of silence. He pulsates a new kind of energy into the world, he sings a new song. He lives in a totally new way, his very way of life is that of grace, that of prayer, that of compassion. Whomsoever he touches, he creates more love-energy. The man of peace is creative. He is not against war, because to be against anything is to be at war. He is not against war, he simply understands why war exists. And out of that understanding he becomes peaceful.
Only when there are many people who are pools of peace, silence, understanding, will the war disappear.
Posted by King at Marzo 25, 2003 08:00 PM
That's very touching, although I don't think many people being pools of peace will make war disappear, only if everyone was would this occur. And in order for everyone to be, you'd have to have it enforced, for it only takes one apple to spoil the whole bunch, as they say. And to have to enforce it ruins the whole damn thing.
I am glad a man of peace is not a pacifist, however. For, to quote George Orwell, "pacifists are the objective allies of tyrants", and nobody wants to be that. Except for Jack Leighton, of course.
What does that mean Sparrow? "Objective allies of tyrants". And how does that apply to Jack Layton?
What are you saying, Sparrow? That in order for anything to come about, such as peace, 'everyone' has to do it? This world would be pretty fucked up and boring (...well, more than it already is) if everyone did and said the same as everyone else. And there are some pretty fucked-up people out there doing absurd things to democracy and freedom (like bombing Al Jazeera headquarters and the Palestine Hotel ... ). What would be the point of doing or saying anything if we all did what those around us did? And what's this 'enforcement' bullshit? How does 'enforcement' work to create peace?
I think two things- 1. King (or rather, Osho) was coming from a Doaist perspective- that peace is born from the SELF - and that in these modern fucked up times, in order to achieve peace, one must start from the self because it certainly isn't going to come from the 'enforcers' (such as our good friend, Mr. Bush Fucking President of the United States). and 2. I think you need to think a bit more about what 'peace', 'tyrant' and 'enforcement' means to you. there is no time like the present for you to be doing that.
Life is absurd. It lifts you to great heights and then it slaps you in the face. People do some weird fucked-up shit, people do amazing things and people randomly die. There is very little sense to this thing called 'life', except for one thing: the world seems to just keep turning (regardless of whether you're in it or not). Life just goes on. It's the cycle. The karma: you only get what you give. And it took all that just to say one bloody simple thing:
If you give peace, you get peace.
Peace by peace by peace.
By the way, how are you, Kingky?
"Objective ally of tyrants" means that, although you are not actively supporting a tyrant, as in cheering him on in a subjective manner, by opposing any sort of force or war to depose said tyrant, ie. being a pacifist, you are in essence supporting the tyrant. Jack Layton is a pacifist and thus a passive friend of tyrants the world over. He should stick to municipal politics where he can do less harm.
Aries, I know exactly what King was getting at: more peaceful people means peace. The problem with this beautiful concept is that it only takes one person to spoil it for everyone, someone like Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Now, like most people who have lived in the complacent, delusional post WW2 era, you think that if you talk peace at someone like Saddam Hussein, negotiate, be diplomatic etc., he'll somehow catch the peace vibe. That may work to ease tensions between Italy and Norway but when you're dealing with some nutter who sees diplomatic efforts as a sign of cowardice, no amount of peaceful groovy talk is going to solve the situation. Sometimes you need brute force to bring about peace. To warble ceaselessly about the virtues of peace is great, but at some point you have to keep peace by fighting for it. Sounds perverse, but it works. See Europe and Japan.
I sort of doubt Orwell would approve of one of his trickier axioms being used to justify the actions of a fascist mouth-breather like George Bush ie using a jackboot-to-the-face invasion technique in a country which only qualifies as invasion fodder because of natural resources, tyrant dictator or no tyrant dictator. There are plenty of rich tyrant dictators in countries that aren't sitting on top of the largest oil reserves on the planet.
What about the Kurds? Sparrow didn't mention the Kurds. Nobody seems to mention the Kurds except Christopher Hitchens. the Hawks could give a shit about the Kurds. So fuck rolling out Orwell quotes when they're in a skewed context. Pacifists are objective allies of tyrants? The extremist republicans puppeteering this mess ARE FUCKING TYRANTS. Plus, if you can't even SPELL JACK LAYTON'S NAME RIGHT then you're not in much of a position to say anything about where his politics "can do less harm".
How predictable. A nice little leftist rant trundling out all the usual cliches that you people rely on in the absence of a credible position. Do you work for The Toronto Star or Now Magazine per chance?
I'm unclear as to why you think the Orwell quote is in a skewed context. Hussein is a tyrant, I think even you would agree with that. Layton is a pacifist and thus thinks nothing worth fighting for - he fits the quotation perfectly. There's no "skewed context" at all. I'm sure Layton agrees with you that the true tyrants are the "extremist Republicans" but as a pacifist, he would still do nothing about it, other than "negotiate". Also, I see no reason why misspelling someone's name prevents me from expressing an opinion about him. If that is your idea of an equitable, free society then perhaps you should examine your values a little more closely. Or perhaps it was more a histrionic reaction to an opinion you did not agree with. How mature.
It's interesting you should bring up Christopher Hitchens, who you no doubt view as a "traitor" because he hasn't allowed an ideology to dictate his opinions, and is in consequence a supporter of this conflict. I learnt the Orwell quote from Hitchens, in fact. Isn't that something?
As for the Kurds, they have lived an autonomous existence in northern Iraq under the American and British no-fly zone for a decade now. Further, the Americans attempted to ferry 60 000 troops into the area at the beginning of the conflict in an attempt to thwart the Turks from even thinking about entering this Kurdish controlled area, neither of which, to me, would indicate "not giving a shit" about the Kurds. Perhaps we should wait to see what happens before spouting off but allow me to assure you that I too will be disgusted if the Americans allow the Iraqi Kurds to be trampled in any way by either the Turks or other Iraqis.
The Americans could have had as much Iraqi oil as they wanted if they had dropped UN imposed sanctions but, unlike a few European powers, they actually thought the UN sanctions should be maintained. However, if we're going to maintain the economic determinist standpoint which you professional protestors are incapbable of shedding, then, frankly, I'd rather have America controlling Iraqi oil than some tin pot Third world dictator doing so and funnelling the winnings to marble his bathrooms and keep his people on ration cards. Funny how it seems the people of Baghdad agree with me.
You smug fuck: "per chance"? fuck you and your "per chance". Writing like Little Lord Fauntleroy really bolsters your credibility as someone who cares for the people.
For the record: the Kurds- autonomous existence? How about the world's largest ethnic group without an internationally recognized state? How about getting the shit end of a violent, oppressive stick from all sides for much longer than you've been writing complacent bits about how well they're being looked after? What would indicate "not giving a shit" to me is admittedly speculative but precedence suggests that they will most likely
get fucked again directly by their neighbours and indirectly by the American lack of interest.
Professional protestor? Fuck you and your presumptuousness. Fuck peace rallys with giant papier maché puppets and assholes on stilts and hauling out the freeze-dried sentiment of fraudulant 1960's idealism. Fuck that too. That's at least as offensive as your shit-eating prose- which suggests a furrowed brow crossed with a toothy grin and obviously plenty of huffy eyerolling.
D'you thing Dick Cheney has a nice bathroom? Have you looked at escalating food stamp stats in the States lately.
"Clichés", "Absence of a credible position"? Yeah and "trundling" out World War II as a justification for this atrocity really signifies original and dynamic thinking.
All right, that was totally out of line. I apologize in advance. But...
Your argument regarding the left, ie reducing anyone who opposes the imperial American right to a charicature of a shrill mewling protestor with smelly dreadlocks and knee-jerk reactionary beliefs is extremely offensive and indicative of the dismissive tendencies of guys like William Cristol and all the other hyperconservatives who make up the bulk of this "war"'s supporters. Furthermore, it's at least as clichéd as any of the counterarguments that I made reference to.
As far as Hitchens is concerned, I don't consider him a "traitor", I just find myself disagreeing with a lot of what he's been saying of late, which is out of line with how I've felt about his writing in the past. On that note, have you read the Minority Reports he was writing 12 years ago?
"perchance" is one word.
And I apologize for caricaturing anyone who opposes the current conflict as a "shrill, mewling protestor with smelly dreadlocks and knee-jerk reactionary beliefs"; it was not my intention. I must take issue, however, with being compared to William Cristol; I think I'd rather be a second hand Volvo-driving, tweed jacket with elbow patches-wearing, Rosedale socialist than that fuckwit. So we've both managed to enter the realm of stereotype.
National self-determination for the Kurds sounds like ethnic nationalism to me and, frankly, that's just ugly regardless of how down-trodden a people have been in the past. The idea that people of different ethnicities can't live inside the same borders peacably disgusts me and should be fought at all costs, but perhaps that's just naive; maybe segregation is the way of the future. North America, Western Europe and Australia/NZ are behind the times I guess.