DisillusionedCitizen
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2022
- Messages
- 371
Every community, especially ones that consist of empathic people, want peace, nonviolence and pacifism as they're the most sought out ideals in human history. Apparently, it has a strong basis in civilization. Pacifism, or non-violent activism, is a belief that war and violence should be condemned, and matters must be settled peacefully. Apparently, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were hailed as champions of nonviolent protest, using their voice; they speak with utmost conviction that love, compassion, and empathy would make tyrannical governments listen to the protesters message and have a change of heart. Unfortunately, pacifism and nonviolence, and more specifically, the perspective that people ascribe to, is not as effective as many people like to think. It's a socially great idea for people to go by on paper, but in practice, it only works when at least two parties are in agreement on a deal/treaty/declaration. It's not as (for lack of a better word) universal an ideal as people like to think.
A change of perspective must be in order: Eliminating the standard perspective of pacifism and nonviolence, a new, alternative, and admittedly more unorthodox view must be called into light, one that hasn't been explored before with a question: What if the opposition to violence and war is expressed not to bring peace and compassion, but lure communities into being oppressed and victimized instead? As far-fetched as this kind of view can be, it doesn't sound like something a pacifist would do... Unless they're the tyrant. How would a pacifistic person be a tyrant and oppress people if they don't fight themselves? The answer is obvious: Through lies, misdirection, laws that protect the pacifist, and (indirectly) drugs. When the pacifistic diplomat has more power over the people and choose to abuse it, they realize they can get away with any lie and and abuse of power as long as they say the right words to calm people down. This kind of pacifism makes other people drop their guards; a loose, pragmatic type of pacifism/nonviolent resistance, for lack of a better term. It's similar to fishermen using bait to catch a fish. Once upon a time, my father once talked to me and his friends about how barbaric fishing can be: you use a bait to catch fish, and the fish is attracted to the bait, lowering its guard. Once the fish is caught and reeled in, it could be killed and used for food. Thinking back to it back then, it's a great analogue that can be applied to empathic people. Hardworking people who are blindly empathic and compassionate tend to fall for this very often, and, because empathy and compassion are pushed more than necessary in the present day, they're little the wiser about it; they think they can solve everything peacefully, and pacifistic tyrants can simply spin everything about the information against them, claiming it to be a slander or a false report.
This pragmatic, unconventional outlook on pacifism is deceptive and unpredictable. No one else understands this viewpoint better than the Jew: The Jew knows they can't win in a direct fight, so they have to undermine the defense of victims. There's a question that has to be asked here: How is it that the Jews took down the Roman Empire after they were crushed militarily? My hypothesis is this: Through their claims that Christianity, and then Islam, is a "religion of peace." Because the Romans over-emphasized empathy and compassion and partially because they were rigid with the other part of reason owing to ignorance, a majority of the Roman officials took all the fictitious stories at face value, not realizing that these "teachings of nonviolence" from Christianity were meant to undermine Rome from within; Roman families had their guards dropped, allowing the Jews to conquer the Roman courts via infiltration and spying, then followed by laws (from banning meat to forbidding occult magic) that slowly weakened the Romans over time, ultimately leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire itself. Islam, however, doesn't claim to keep up the peace as long as Christianity does. The Jews partially repeated this application of pacifism into the present day.
A change of perspective must be in order: Eliminating the standard perspective of pacifism and nonviolence, a new, alternative, and admittedly more unorthodox view must be called into light, one that hasn't been explored before with a question: What if the opposition to violence and war is expressed not to bring peace and compassion, but lure communities into being oppressed and victimized instead? As far-fetched as this kind of view can be, it doesn't sound like something a pacifist would do... Unless they're the tyrant. How would a pacifistic person be a tyrant and oppress people if they don't fight themselves? The answer is obvious: Through lies, misdirection, laws that protect the pacifist, and (indirectly) drugs. When the pacifistic diplomat has more power over the people and choose to abuse it, they realize they can get away with any lie and and abuse of power as long as they say the right words to calm people down. This kind of pacifism makes other people drop their guards; a loose, pragmatic type of pacifism/nonviolent resistance, for lack of a better term. It's similar to fishermen using bait to catch a fish. Once upon a time, my father once talked to me and his friends about how barbaric fishing can be: you use a bait to catch fish, and the fish is attracted to the bait, lowering its guard. Once the fish is caught and reeled in, it could be killed and used for food. Thinking back to it back then, it's a great analogue that can be applied to empathic people. Hardworking people who are blindly empathic and compassionate tend to fall for this very often, and, because empathy and compassion are pushed more than necessary in the present day, they're little the wiser about it; they think they can solve everything peacefully, and pacifistic tyrants can simply spin everything about the information against them, claiming it to be a slander or a false report.
This pragmatic, unconventional outlook on pacifism is deceptive and unpredictable. No one else understands this viewpoint better than the Jew: The Jew knows they can't win in a direct fight, so they have to undermine the defense of victims. There's a question that has to be asked here: How is it that the Jews took down the Roman Empire after they were crushed militarily? My hypothesis is this: Through their claims that Christianity, and then Islam, is a "religion of peace." Because the Romans over-emphasized empathy and compassion and partially because they were rigid with the other part of reason owing to ignorance, a majority of the Roman officials took all the fictitious stories at face value, not realizing that these "teachings of nonviolence" from Christianity were meant to undermine Rome from within; Roman families had their guards dropped, allowing the Jews to conquer the Roman courts via infiltration and spying, then followed by laws (from banning meat to forbidding occult magic) that slowly weakened the Romans over time, ultimately leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire itself. Islam, however, doesn't claim to keep up the peace as long as Christianity does. The Jews partially repeated this application of pacifism into the present day.
