Thoughts about Peace and Love

[*Youngtusk]

I've recently spent some time up in Northern California, which has seemingly become a refuge for ex-hippies and a sanctuary for students who didn't take their lives seriously, usually a victim of one too many doses of LSD. I spent several hours amongst them, in their smoking circles in the grass meadows surrounded with rich red woods, just west of the UC Santa Cruz campus. Most of the things they talked about were meaningless, reminents of false revelations from their last acid trip. What stuck with me the most was this illusion they had that everything could be solved with love. Now don't get me wrong, i'm not so pessimistic to think that love is pointless or unreal. It is real, but their words left me unsettled.

As I sat with them, I came upon my own analyzations, and now wish to see waht you all think of them.

I think that those who preach Love and Peace, for all their empathy have not compassion. When I say compassion, i'm referring to the ability to sympathize, to try as hard as you can to objectivly see things from others point of view. I think this is an important skill, because I feel that it opens up new ways of viewing things and also being able to critically analyze them from different persepctives as well.

This is important, because based on my experiences, in order to find one self, they must be equipped with the ideas of others. They must be taught how to analyze themselves by learning how to analyze others. This was true for me; I had plenty of introspective oppurtunities in which I could have figured out who I was, what I believed, and what I was doing here. But I didn't know how!

That was a while ago, but moving on.

I feel that those who preach the free-love lifestly know not the mechanics of the world. It is easy to spit pieties when you don't have to see the cash-crop workers in Guatemala. Its easy to preach peace when you've never been in war. Its easy to value love when you aren't the one who has to delegate underpaid and overworked miners. But we need those crops, and those minerals. Someone has to do the dirty work, because love won't. Theres a better way to do it, but I don't think simple solutions of peace and love will solve these complex issues.

I feel that those who preach the free-love lifestyle preach it because it is easier to love then it is to criticize. It makes them look high-minded when really they're lazy. To love unconditionally is to dismiss the critical issues that are real. One cannot love and tell another that they have to work, because even if everyone loved eachother, that work still has to be done in order for our civilizations to survive.

So why do they do this? I think its because its easier for most People to feel love than it is to think hard. I know first hand that thinking can be uncomforting, it can arouse feelings of angst and uncertainty. They'd much rather replace these thoughts by bleeding their empathy. Instead of solving these complex problems, they just preach their love and peace and think that they've contributed their part. Thats the bit that bothers me, is that they think its working.

Anyway, thats all.

[*YoungGuyver]

You know, I think I agree with you on a few points.

I agree that love is one of the most valuable things in the universe. Something that is to be cherished well.

But love does not spread easily, that is one reason why it is so valuable, because it can easily be lost, let alone bring great pain, and be used to bring most anything. But the spreading of it alone in order to bring peace is next to impossible. Especially when others can spread fear to bring what they want.

I think peace and love should be the end goal in sight, and something to strive for very much. I was at a Zeit Geist movie showing that had a discussion group at the end. I was really looking forward to it. I thought People were going to look at all the other evidences they saw around them, the flaws in the documentary, and the possible solutions. There was a hippie social worker there who dominated the conversation. It turned into a 'love in', where spreading the peace and love became the only focus of conversation. Getting a word in edge wise was next to impossible.

I think real change will come from thinking of practicable solutions. Practical strategies. Well thought out methods must be executed in order to counter the opposite parties that influence the system in a way contrary to our desires for a society embracing 'peace and love'. Maybe Gundam Wing/00 has the right idea, or maybe something along the lines of hacker/cracker teams can bring it.

[*Youngtusk]

I like to think of myself as a man of pragmatism. However, i think in many cases regarding a society, ethics and practicality aren't usually on the same side of an arguement.

A practical solution to crime is capital punishment. If you commit a mildly severe crime, you will get lined up with the other garbage of our prestine culture and gunned down by anonymous gunmen; the gunmen would be like a jury, it would be the citizen's duties to partake.

That would be a very effectrive crime deterrent, but its immoral to many. Now, I agree with you that pragmatism rocks, but where, my friend, do we draw the line between being practical machines of productivity and progress, and ethical humans of compassion and hatred? Perhapes thats too broad of a question, but it sums up my thoughts pretty well.

Anyway, I agree that ultiamtly peace and love is our objective in terms of social relations. But a world governed by sympathy and compassion is just too good a thing for me to really give much thought to. All we can do is grow up, pay our taxes, and try to give our two cents to human progress, and hope to all hope that our contributions won't go to waste, and that the human race will survive and live on to whatever future it holds.

[*Jess♥]

perspective.

i love that word.

yes i LOVE it. he he.

well these People who are promoting 'peace and love' are basicaly full of drenn. because what they are promoting is not peace and love, it is ignorance and lust.

ask a parent who smacks his/her child why they do it. they will answer they love the child and they smack the child because if they didn't the child would have put their hand in hte fire and gotten badly injured.

of course parenting methods are improving so that example may not be 100% accurate in hte modern day.

the point I am making is thouhg... love is being harsh. love is understanding. love is accepting people's faults but not letting them hurt you. love is a lot of things, but love is most certainly NOT complacency.

and then there's peace.. well i'm sorry but peace is nothing without war. ying yang is very important concept. you can't have light without dark or good without evil.

and sometimes in war times, you cannot bring peace without a show of force.

what these peoplea ctually want to do is simply bury their head under a rock until all the problems of teh world just magically vanish.. oh and hug a lot which is basically a very light form of lust.

real love empowers you. because if you truly love, you can be happy when that person is happy. no matter what that situation is, if they are happy you are happy because you love them. to love anybody unconditionally, you se their inadequacies and you forgive them. you accept that they are human. and you accept that they can make mistakes. and if they are in trouble you help them. the most effective way. if you have to be cruel to be kind then so be it.

[*BananaKing]

What no hippie seems to understand is that peace cannot exist without war! War creates peace and peace is created by war, the two are opposites that must coexist in order for the other to exist

[*YoungGuyver]

Three things.

I think I've learned a lot about raising children, or at least in working with them. Spanking doesn't work. You need a psychological deterrent. Simply letting them get away with something is obviously out of the question. And yes, there are times when you MUST be strict. But not all discipline involve physical pain. I was never allowed to touch any of my boys, I HAD to work mentally, and I got results.

A you can't have peace without war? I think that is a total line of absolute garbage. Complete and utter bullshit.

If you have war, then there is no peace. Bombs exploding is not peace. End of story. Do you have to be vigilant in your peace? Yes, definitely. Must you be active to maintain your peace, oh yes. Do you press a button and blow up an enemy when they start doing things you don't like, such as torturing civilians? No, that enters into war. You make strategic arrests and put in long term jail sentences. Or some other mutually pre-agreed upon result.

The only time I can condone killing is for food, self defense, or the valiant defense of others. The first one is easy to validate. The second one had BETTER have someone shooting at you, I agree with the UN that anticipated strikes don't count. And the third, good luck determining which side of the conflict deserves backing.

But being pragmatic about attaining peace and love? I think we can't really sit back and take steps to 'improve the future of our race'. There are corporations out there that manufacture weapons, and profit off strife and war. They, along with a billion other corporations, have lobbyists out there payout out politicians to make laws that allow them to profit so that 'our' economy is strong. It's a joke. They actively take steps to shape the world to suit their needs, and I think we need to do the same in order to move the world closes to a society of 'peace and love'. That I think is the mistake of the hippie, they think a love in is all they need. And I think the mistake of the common man, is that they think a vote for a particular political party will solve it all.

It's sad that we should even consider having to buy out our politicians from the corporations. I mean, our taxes already go towards paying their salaries, and WE voted for them to fill that job. They are OUR employees. I think the next best step is to have them serve jail time for corruption, and war profiteering. Along with corporate executives that lobby governments. That is, unless they change the laws to all war profiteering again, in which case I say we riot. Either way, they need jail time. 20 years minimum, assuming we let some of them out for the crimes against humanity (Iraq has over 300 000 citizens dead now-doesn't include other countries)

[*Jess♥]

A you can't have peace without war? I think that is a total line of absolute garbage. Complete and utter bullshit.

The only time I can condone killing is for food, self defense, or the valiant defense of others. The first one is easy to validate. The second one had BETTER have someone shooting at you, I agree with the UN that anticipated strikes don't count. And the third, good luck determining which side of the conflict deserves backing.

contradiction much?

so as an example...

you're saying that the peace that came about after world war 2....

if the uk or america had not declared war, would there have been that peace?

no the world would be a massive nazi state killing millions of People who do not have blonde hair and blue eyes.

no, war as an act of defence is really quite necessary for peace on every level.

declaring war is basically saying "I will not let you bully me"

Like i said real love/peace is not complacency. if People do not stand up for themselves and fight their aggressors, the aggressors will go on to hurt more and more people.

just to elaborate a bit more.. war is not the worst part here. war is actually the peacemaking action. it is invasion that is the bad part. war is fighting back.

apathy would be the worst because if a nation refuses to fight, they get invaded. the invasive force gets more Resources and becomes more powerful and becomes more of a threat to other nations. so apathy (the so called 'peace' ) is the worst enemy. war is actually a movement for peace. before you get the movement to fight for peace, it is not war.

I feel the need to elaborate on this very much, I feel like i cannot make myself clear enough on this matter. but i will have to stop there and hope that you have seen the perspective i am trying to give.

[*YoungGuyver]

Didn't Hitler have the industries of Germany build tanks? Didn't they use guns to invade Poland, and other countries?

And wasn't Germany so easily convinced to go to war after the treatment they received after a previous war? The peace from the first war didn't really seam to last.

[*Jess♥]

that's very true. germany was basically given a pretty bad deal after the first world war. in actuality germany may have been justified to rid itself of the 'invaders on it's own soil'. unfortunately they had a leader who went way too far.

but that was just an example, I wouldn't like to go into the politics of early 20th century europe.

i edited my last post sorry. I didn't realise you were actually online now.

uhm.. yeah i also wanted to add that war is not always fought with weapons and killing. a lot of the time, war can be fought with politics, aversion tactics, barriers etc. just consider the cold war.

I'm not suggesting that we need to kill lots of People to have peace.

but what I am saying is that leaders very often will want more power. it's an inevitability and the only thing that stops a leader from invading other countries is the fact that the countries are ready to fight for what is theirs.

and evn then it doesn't stop them and the only thing that can restore that peace is for the countries to fight.

[*Youngtusk]

You can have peace without having war. I don't buy into that whole "What good is good without evil" arguement. There is no objective "good" or "evil" that form a ying-yang power in the world. There is only Progress and Regress.

One of my favorite books is "Devil on the Cross" by Ngugi wa Thiong'o. Its a very very good novel about Kenya and social progress. But there is one quote in particular that I love;

"It is a war without spectators. For each man is part of the forces that have been recruited for creating, building, making our humanity grow and blossom in order to nurture our human nature and create our own Heaven, thus taking on the nature of God - these are the forces of the clan of producers; or he is part of the forces of the destruction, of dismantling, of harassing and oppressing the builders and the creators, the forces that seek to suppress our humanity, turning us into beasts in order that we should create our own Hell, thus taking on the nature of Satan - these are the forces of the clan of parasites. Each of the two forces builds a heart that reflects the nature of its clan. Therefore there are two hearts: the heart built by the clan of parasites, the evil heart; and the heart built by the clan of producers, the good heart.

It is our actions that show which side we are on and therefore what kind of heart we are building. For our hands, our organs, our bodies, our energy are like a sharp sword. This sword, in the hands of a producer, can cultivate, make food grow, and can defend the cultivators so that the blessings and the fruits of their sweat is not wrestled from them; and the same sword, in the hands of a parasite, can be used to destroy the crops or to deny producers the fruits of their industry.

In the hands of a producer the sword of fire has the capacity to do good. And in the hands of the parasite the sword of fire has the capacity to do evil. Its actions illustrate both the evil and the good nature of the sword of fire. The same is true of the labour of our bodies.

One thing is certain. What is done cannot be undone. Our actions are the bricks that we use to construct either a good or an evil heart."

Its true that leaders always seem to fall into the trap of power-mungering, but allowing them to become corrupt is the fault of the people. Running a country effectivly requires well-informed and participative citizens. The governmnet needs the threat of riots, they need the threat of strikes. They need to be shown that we are the people, and that we have the power, and that we are the ones who run things, and that the government is there to serve us. Afterall, Government was made by man, not God, so it logically follows that governements are made to serve the people. Otherwise it seems sort of ass-backwards to create something that doesn't serve us, eh?

Just like V said, Governements should be afraid of its people.

[*Jess♥]

do you understand the hypocricy of saying this

You can have peace without having war. I don't buy into that whole "What good is good without evil" arguement. There is no objective "good" or "evil" that form a ying-yang power in the world. There is only Progress and Regress.

and then saying this

The governmnet needs the threat of riots, they need the threat of strikes. They need to be shown that we are the people, and that we have the power, and that we are the ones who run things, and that the government is there to serve us. Afterall, Government was made by man, not God, so it logically follows that governements are made to serve the people. Otherwise it seems sort of ass-backwards to create something that doesn't serve us, eh?

Just like V said, Governements should be afraid of its people.

[*Youngtusk]

Those are two different points; i'm saying that peace and war are don't need the other to exist. Perhapes to be appreciated, but not to be.

What does that have to do with keeping a Government in check? I never said Progress is Peace, or involves peace. Indeed, war may have to be declared for Progress, i.e. the ends justifying the means.

I don't understand what you're gettin at.

[*Jess♥]

Those are two different points; i'm saying that peace and war are don't need the other to exist. Perhapes to be appreciated, but not to be.

What does that have to do with keeping a Government in check? I never said Progress is Peace, or involves peace. Indeed, war may have to be declared for Progress, i.e. the ends justifying the means.

I don't understand what you're gettin at.

I see what you're saying.. a matter of perspective. In that case yes of course you are 100% correct.

you don't need war to HAVE peace because they contradict each other.

what i was saying about the People keeping the government in check.. I was implying that rioting is a type of war. it's war of People vs government.

do we need to be careful without words here. maybe we need to be careful so there are no misunderstandings?

sorry if I confused things.

i should rephrase what i said earlier you need war to GET peace in some occasions.

[*Youngtusk]

i should rephrase what i said earlier you need war to GET peace in some occasions.

Very true, and if it is indeed for the right reason, then I would call that Progress, because even though brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and friends are dieing, its potentially for the betterment of civilization. It doesn't make War right, good, or fair, but perhapes it makes war and all the souls lost justified. But it better be a damn good reason.

One concern I have about cyber-technology in War is liability. If we start fighting all our enemys with robots and unmanned remote vehicles, then no one will be held liable for the destruction caused by war. If the threat of young soldiers dieing is replaced with robotic warriors, I think it might fuel a war-mungering political position. War will become the biggest machine blowing up the other machines, like a game played by giddy children.

[*BananaKing]

War and peace can only exist if the other is present. Natural human instincts make us instigate fighting amungst each other leading to a large conflict where numerous People ingadge in conflict, i. e. war. But the counter balance to fighting is to reach a resolution, which usually implies that fighting ceases and violence ends. Now war has stopped. Due to the fact that the two combatting sides have sustained losses and have agreed to try and cooperate, People gain trust towards each other and act frioendly to a point where the desire for war ends. i.e peace. Now, as long as we all have unique brains that allow us to think individually, there will always be someone who is unhappy with what the peace brings and will rally people, either through lies, manipulationb, false promises, or real promisies, what-have-you, and will follow that base instict and instage fighting again. The instigation will spark that instict to fight back and war will once again be achieved. And then People will try and achieve peace, the point is that war and peace are not so much opposites (I know its contradicting what I said before) but rather its like a cycle! The same thing can be said about the Death Cycle, both in the regard that like and death are opposites and are a cycle.

[*Youngtusk]

I don't see the connection between Peace and War. What is it that leads you to believe that you cannot have one without the other? You can achieve peace without war, and vice versa. Spike Iran's water supply with methylenedioxymethamphetamine and I guarenteee you they won't be wanting to fight anybody. War and Peace are not two sides of the same coin; they are seperate and different concepts. It just so happens that they work against each other.

Think Matter and Anti-Matter. Its impossible to have both at the same time because they cancel eachother out; they contradict each other. War and PEace are the same way. They can't exist at the same time, because they're simply two very distinct things that contradict eachother. It doesn't make sense to me then, to say that you can't have one without the other, because you cannot have one if you DO have the other.

[*YoungGuyver]

I agree with Youngtusk.

People assume that War will lead to Peace. Any real world examples? Is the peace after a war permanent? (Germany in WW2, the constant bombings and what not in the middle east). People seem to have the ability to resent for a very long time. War is not guaranteed to lead to peace. Some People may grow tired of war, but how many are willing to give up their hatred?

Moving on, define war. When I say war, I mean the immoral action of a nation going out and killing people. A cold war isn't as bad, not really a war, because at least it's limited to being passive aggressive behavior. There may be guns, but the bullets don't fly. Now in reality, the best example of a cold war has it being fought in blood by smaller nations. In other words, the US and USSR had smaller nations go to war on their behalf (Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea). Al of these are terrible, and make the cold war just as bad as a real one in every regard; as it breaks the principle of being cold, hot blood is spilled. (on a side note, Vietnam could be said to be more about colonialism and capitalism than the cold war against communism).

But hell yes, the People should throw down their governments for inciting war. We should use the international police to arrest war mongers. We can spend billions of dollars to land a man on the moon, build a plane that avoids all forms of detection, scan the deepest secrets of a microbe, yet we can't arrest 5 dirty politicians without bombing thousands of innocent civilians. Riiiiight.

In my opinion, Peace is possible, if we cut the crap. (Sorry for the offensive language. Is it over the top or tone?)

[*Jess♥]

I agree with Youngtusk.

People assume that War will lead to Peace. Any real world examples? Is the peace after a war permanent? (Germany in WW2, the constant bombings and what not in the middle east). People seem to have the ability to resent for a very long time. War is not guaranteed to lead to peace. Some People may grow tired of war, but how many are willing to give up their hatred?

Moving on, define war. When I say war, I mean the immoral action of a nation going out and killing people. A cold war isn't as bad, not really a war, because at least it's limited to being passive aggressive behavior. There may be guns, but the bullets don't fly. Now in reality, the best example of a cold war has it being fought in blood by smaller nations. In other words, the US and USSR had smaller nations go to war on their behalf (Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea). Al of these are terrible, and make the cold war just as bad as a real one in every regard; as it breaks the principle of being cold, hot blood is spilled. (on a side note, Vietnam could be said to be more about colonialism and capitalism than the cold war against communism).

But hell yes, the People should throw down their governments for inciting war. We should use the international police to arrest war mongers. We can spend billions of dollars to land a man on the moon, build a plane that avoids all forms of detection, scan the deepest secrets of a microbe, yet we can't arrest 5 dirty politicians without bombing thousands of innocent civilians. Riiiiight.

In my opinion, Peace is possible, if we cut the crap. (Sorry for the offensive language. Is it over the top or tone?)

I'm enjoying this.

well peace is not permanent. human being are aggressive by nature. it is in our nature to be territorial.

is there anybody here that has not gotten jealous when some guy talks to their girlfriend?

so what is peace? we have a definition of war here so maybe define peace. is a cold war peace? People live in fear of being melted in a nuclear blast. is that true peace? or is it still war?

so let's look at how fighting has changed. since teh nuclear bomb was created.. war seemed to stop... at least between the big powers.. the People who didn't have the nuclear weapons simply felt incredibly intimidated. suddenly the People with hte nuclear bombs could invade any of teh smaller countries and not worry too much about retaliation. the most powerful country soon spreads it's influence and continues imperialism in a different fashion. it changes the other countries into what it wants them to be wether they like it or not. soldiers ar present in other countries. just because teh governments seem to be cordial, does that mean it's not an occupation? well consider that the governments of these countries are being manipulated and in some cases set up by this powerful country? what happens to hte people's previous government. the original power of this country? the power that represented the mindseet of the people?

of course we are told to assume that these People would welcome democracy. but how do we know for sure?

well we do have plenty of evidence of People NOT welcoming democracy.

those People reject democracy and they reject the occupying force.

and they fight back. but teh thing now.. is that because teh government is no longer responsible, the super power no longer has a target for it's nuclear weapon threats. this is a different kind of warfare.

terrorism is viewed as separate and by small factions of people, but it can only be the tip of the iceberg. an army usually only represents a small fraction of a larger body.

if these People believe so strongly in something that they would die for it.. it is most likely that many many People believe very strongly, but not strongly enough to risk their lives... it still means that a whole mass of People are uinhappy about the situation and actually support the warriors.

so we are actually talking about full scale war with another country, but teh country simply doesn't have a recognised governing body.

the best way to attain true peace lies with real love for others.. meaning respect for peopl's territory, their beliefs, their governing systems, respect for these people's way of living.

i believe this is possible, but not at this current time. humanity is still in it's infancy and still behaves like a school yard with all it's squabbling kids.

teh super power is now the big kid that intimidates all the other kids into behaving how it wants them to. it takes all their lunch money, has them do it's bidding.

it seems now though... that the other kids are sneaking around and attempting to cripple the big kid.

when will peace come around in the playground? when hte kids all learn to respect each other.

how long does it take People to respect each other?

I know 60 year old People who behave aggressively and bully others.

people can live in peace. People can cooperate.. but it's only a matter of time until one person makes a mistake and territory is violated. People are fiercely protective of their territory, as they relate their territory to their productivity and their happiness.

fighting continues.. always. because People have different values. even hte peaceful People fight. People who want to protect animals.. there have been instaces of these activists sending letter bombs to pharmacy companies. even the 'peaceful', 'loving' People can be extremely aggressive given hte right circumstances. they believe they can justify it so they don't feel it is a wrong thing.

[Guest Bacta5]

Weapons manufacturers? And just what do you think their real profit margin actually is?

People who vilify weapon manufacturers seem to ignore the fact the weapons don't get together and decide to kill the puny humans. Or for that matter that the less the perceived cost of war the lower the barrier is to engaging in it.

Let's take Japanese history for example. Between the time the Mongols showed up and the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate, you basically had a lot of mercs that were in it to get as much as they could and would turn on their "masters" if they didn't feel "adequately" paid. The warriors however basically left everyone alone but the other warriors so the base to support such things basically stayed intact. Thus they engaged in civil war for roughly a century that only really ended because a series of three guys arranging things so continuing to wage civil war basically became impossible.

Conflict exists because of competing desires, opinions, and otherwise. The nature of the conflict is determined by the potential costs and the standard limitations of what one can do and what they can get away with. "Peace" involves structuring things so that it would cost a person more then they're willing to pay to do something. People really need to read Clausewitz.

People assume that War will lead to Peace. Any real world examples?

Carthage, Troy, and others show Total War is quite, quite capable of accomplishing that. The Roman Empire, the Conquests of Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and otherwise including Japan of itself for the less absolute approach.

Now in reality, the best example of a cold war has it being fought in blood by smaller nations. In other words, the US and USSR had smaller nations go to war on their behalf (Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea).

... Uh no.

The USSR invaded Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline, otherwise it is one of the most strategically irrelevant pieces of dirt on the face of the planet. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say with Cuba. Vietnam was being supplied by China, but the NVA was more or less its own animal that got out of hand. Hence they were smacked down by China itself later. The NVA and its regime being responsible for the slaughter of millions. Based on your limited war and colonialism propaganda, that blood is on _your_ hands as much as anyones, because People with attitudes like that prevented things from being resolved despite the Vietnamese getting their butts handed to them on a silver platter, repeatedly. In Korea again the North invaded, although it was utterly defeated except for the Chinese involvement, and the Truman's not wanting to engage the Chinese.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Bacta5