True Nature of Pacifism

We got something interesting here.

Nature of pacifism
We have a dear and devout friend by the name of Danny Young, who eloquently responded to a claim of pacifism by his ex-wife with the following words.
“You’re not a pacifist, you’re just afraid of physical violence.”

In order to truly understand the significance of that statement, one must first understand both the term pacifist, pacifism and their root term pacific. As defined by Random House Unabridged Edition

Pacific: adj 1) tending to make peace; conciliatory 2) not warlike; peaceable; mild 3) at peace; peaceful 4) calm; tranquil 5) pertaining to the pacific ocean etc., etc.. Pacifism: Brit .pacifism [pacific + ism] -pacifistic
Pacifism: n. 1) opposition to war or violence of any kind 2) the principle or policy of establishing and maintaining universal peace or such relations among all nations that all differences may be adjusted without recourse to war 3) nonresistance to aggression
Pacifist: n. 1) a person who believes in pacifism or who is opposed to war or violence of any kind (emphasis ours). 2) A man whose personal belief in pacifism causes him to refuse being drafted into military service. 3) A person who refuses to resist violence or aggression.

In short, pacifism is not only about being against violence, it also is about being non-violent.

To be a pacifist, you must be peaceful. And that means you don’t use violence to get what you want. To be peaceful you strive for calm and tranquility; within in your mind, within your spirit, within your emotions and attitudes, within your words and within your behavior. You project peace, not violence. In short, being pacifistic means that you do not engage in any kind of violence yourself.

Unfortunately, most self-proclaimed ‘pacifists’ are anything but pacific. When considered with the definition of violence given below (click down, and return) the implications of Mr. Young’s statement should bring you up short. It is very easy to be extremely violent without ever being physical about it. Pacifism is not — as many self-proclaimed pacifists do — screaming vitriolic anger at people and then claiming you are non-violent because you didn’t punch anybody. If you think this is an exaggeration, look at photos and examine the faces of people who are engaged in “peace protests,” or better yet, watch their actions and behaviors on film, especially when they are confronting someone. They are many things, but non-violent is not one of them.

Pacifism is not about being “verbally/emotionally violent” and then hiding behind a convenient definition so you don’t get punched. Nor is it about being selfish and hurtful and relying on convention to keep you safe. People who engage in violence without ever “stooping” to physical violence are not being pacifistic. In order to get their way, they are trying to control the degree of violence in which they participate. What is interesting to notice is the intense unease of these kind of people have when around individuals who they deem “violent.” (e.g. those who will take it physical). Our theory is that their reliance on violence makes them uncomfortable around someone who is willing to go further with it than they.

Contrast this with the fact that a “truly” pacific person will be safe around violent individuals. It is a litmus test for true non-violence. A peaceful person will literally cause a violent person to “relax.” Being as there is no violence in them, there is nothing to reflect back. Such a person can safely exist in the toughest of neighborhoods and deal with the most violent people without danger (except on rare occasions involving someone who is so severely mentally disturbed, disturbed that we are talking institutionalization ). The reason for this “safety” — and the reason it is so important to realize the difference between true pacifism and just claiming that you are a pacifist — is simple.

Violence attracts violence.

Makes sense. It is what we see, after all. And it explains all the facts.

Then there’s the issue of rape and how women find it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively escape, resist, or defeat their attackers. Including service members in Iraq that are armed with sidearms and rifles most of the time. On that note, here’s some reality footage to keep things in perspective.

The gun is not the end all and be all solution. Why? Because.

It is range limited. Handguns and rifles lose most of their effectiveness once the target reaches a certain distance. Usually 10 or 20 feet.

Second reason, you may simply be too busy to worry about drawing and firing your sidearm. Case in point, look at the video above.

Third reason, whatever you are firing may not put down the foe. That includes tazers. Maybe I’ll find a gunshot video too.

Then there is what I call police union corruption. I don’t know what went on in either of these cases, but Chicago and Ohio are not the best places to find honest police protection instead of protection rackets run by union goons.

The union, you see, prevents the firing of bad officers. And keeps them all together, like a Mafia.

This is the only officer that didn’t get attacked from the pack. His calm demeanor played a significant role in that. Of course, once the officer got in the way of the drunk leaving, all bets were off.

You have to watch this to see what a joke some government agencies are. Case in point, get ready for when the DEA says he is the only professional one in this room to….

Then there is this video below of why you might not want to drive while judgment impaired. Things could get hairy.

Explore posts in the same categories: violence

3 Comments on “True Nature of Pacifism”

  1. Texan99 Says:

    That DEA agent footage is amazing. I like the way they refuse to give him a second gun, and people start leaving the room with their small children.

  2. ymarsakar Says:

    People aren’t as stupid as they think. They’re just easy to convince using expertise, authority, and government backed promises.

    The bad news is that absent government firearms “experts”, those parents really have no other option. They won’t believe the NRA has proper firearms safety courses. So they will still be afraid of guns. No matter how much they distrust the government, they can do nothing without trusting in a competent source of solutions.

  3. Texan99 Says:

    What they need to be afraid of is incompetence. This guy was lucky he didn’t kill anyone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: