This Tree Hugging Hippie Pacifist Needs To Go Heart To Heart With Those Who Glorify War
___
◊♦◊
I found myself jumping into a conversation when I overheard an older man (likely in his 70’s) say to a younger man that he should “be a man and not a wimp,” because he had mentioned that it had been chilly when he had left for work early that morning and needed to put on a light jacket.
Wars are not always fought with weaponry, but with thoughts and words.
|
Although I am by no means a military strategist, it makes no sense to me that any of the wars that have been waged in my lifetime have been about ‘fighting for me’ and protecting American soil. I have heard the rhetoric about supporting the military. My take is that the best way to do that is to bring them home safely.
◊♦◊
He made another comment that “peace is bad.” and earlier on had remarked that what was happening in the Middle East was to be expected since it was predicted in the Bible. I told him that I didn’t want to get into a pissing contest with him, but then afterward, I realized that I already had, by taking the bait, when I had invited myself into their conversation. Wars are not always fought with weaponry, but with thoughts and words. I had held disdain in my mind and heart for this man, then muzzled myself and sent him thoughts of good will, peace and compassion. When I was busy judging him (as he likely was doing with me), I was contributing to the energy that creates violence. Each of us would have reason to justify our position, but would we truly hear one another if we could have a calm conversation? Would I want to understand his views? If two people who were in a safe, suburban environment, with no armaments at our disposal were lofting words at each other and were in disharmony, how much more challenging is it for literal warring factions with weapons of mass destruction at their fingertips and hair trigger tempers ready to rage?
DeLani. You got the definition wrong. By “favor” in the Brit sense, it means “enable”. You’re right. Fascists kill pacifists, which means they can become as militaristic and aggressive as they like without internal resistance. The virtuous society allows pacifists to work, and weaken them, thus making them prey to the fascists. That’s what Orwell meant and it’s hard to dispute it.
What do you think Hitler and Mussolini thought about the Oxford Union declaration of 1933?
I’m also an Army vet, who understands that, for STRICTLY defensive purposes, violence may be necessary. I grieve at the necessity.
Wm. This makes you a circumstance judger like pretty much everybody else.
Shouldn’t have to quote Orwell, who’d been around, to the point that, effectively the pacifist favors the fascist. Using the Brit meaning of “favors” as “enables”.
By that definition, Martin Luther King and Ghandi were supporting fascists. History shows it’s the warmonger who loves and supports the fascists; fascists always glorify and elevate the military a d war in general, and actively suppress or kill intellectuals and pacifists.
This is spot on… “If two people who were in a safe, suburban environment, with no armaments at our disposal were lofting words at each other and were in disharmony, how much more challenging is it for literal warring factions with weapons of mass destruction at their fingertips and hair trigger tempers ready to rage?” Breaking the cycle of antogonism, of tit for tat, and eye for an eye is the only path for peace. It sounds so pretty on paper, so easy, but its not. Its hard work. And its good work! And before I sound like a tree hugging Buddhist, which… Read more »