|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Pacifism
RESPONDENT: I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’. RESPONDENT: So. RICHARD: So you have missed the central point of that explanation ... to wit: to be superficially
altering behavioural patterns RESPONDENT: They feel empathy (a dirty little emotion) for harmless animals that have not done anything to anyone and they do something about it. RICHARD: As those animals, just like the human animal, are born with instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – per favour blind nature they are not harmless … as you acknowledge (albeit en passant) further below. Vis.:
Incidentally, empathy is usually considered to be a positive (aka a ‘good’) emotion and not a negative (aka a ‘bad’) one. RESPONDENT: I think it is you who are rearranging deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’ with these lame defences (something you don’t do) of your version of peace on earth and good will toward ... well man. RICHARD: It is not my version of the hymnic ‘peace on earth/good will to all mankind’ which is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site at all: it is, rather, the already always existing peace-on-earth of this actual world – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – where it is startling obvious that it be something which no amount of behavioural pattern alteration will ever bring about. * RESPONDENT: Bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice. RICHARD: Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’, as the emotions and passions, fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem. Violence itself (as in physical force/restraint) is essential lest the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would rule the world. And if all 6.0 billion peoples were to become happy and harmless overnight (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) it would still be essential lest the predator animals should have the human animal for its next meal. Yet even if all the predator animals were to cease being predatory (à la the ‘lion shall lay down with lamb’ ancient wisdom) it would still be essential if the crops in the field be not stripped bare by the insect world. And so on and so on: taking medication – even traditional medicine – does violence to a whole host of bacterial life; so too does drinking water as one drop contains many miniscule creatures; even breathing does violence as a breath of air contains untold numbers of microscopic life-forms. RESPONDENT: The animals will be so happy to know. RICHARD: This is just a waste of a sentence. RESPONDENT: Also he goes on a big rant about how you are bound to kill things, and even vegetable must undergo distress when pulled from the earth. I have never heard a more obvious evasion of a question in my life. You don’t have to eat meat. No one is forcing you to. You don’t just walk down the street and accidentally kill animals, you choose to eat them or not. RICHARD: Every time you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take a step, sneeze, and so on, something, somewhere (if only on the microscopic level) is being killed by you. Being alive as a creature means other creatures inevitably die ... I watched a fascinating video, some time back, of fantastic camera work on the microscopic level: a drop of dew from an early morning rose had at least 1,000-10,000 tiny shrimp-like and crab-like creatures in it all swimming around and multiplying and eating each other. A dew drop, mind you. * RESPONDENT: What did a kangaroo kick your ass or something. RICHARD: As kangaroos are not predator animals your query is doubly-irrelevant (it being also non-germane whether or not one particular human animal has been subject to predation). RESPONDENT: When is the last time an animal stalked you for it’s prey. RICHARD: Again, whether such predation has happened to one human animal in particular, or not, is beside the point. RESPONDENT: No one has said anything about self defence, this is entirely novel to the discussion thus far. RICHARD: If I may point out? In that explanation of mine (as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists), which you were just selectively reading, there are at least three paragraphs regarding the question of self-defence. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: But if an angry marsupial comes after you than I suppose it is only fair to pull out an oozy and get to it. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you say (further below in this e-mail of yours):
As you suppose it is only fair to kill a predating animal, in self-defence, with a submachine gun then the
very basis of what you have to say, in your vegetarians versus omnivores diatribe, is rendered null and void. RESPONDENT: 5) Related to this (the link between ‘the inner’ and ‘the outer’), is it possible for someone who is actually free, happy and harmless, to freely, happily and harmlessly punch someone in the face? RICHARD: First and foremost, as there is no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ in actuality there is nothing here in this actual world to have any such linkage. Second, to be actually free from the human condition is to be sans the affective faculty/identity in toto. Third, the happiness and harmlessness referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is the total absence of malice and sorrow. Fourth, to freely punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force non-prejudiciously. Fifth, to happily punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force without sorrow. Sixth, to harmlessly punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force without malice. Thus your query can look something like this when spelled-out in full:
In a word ... yes. RESPONDENT: I mean I’m talking ‘in context’ here – not just through malice, but to protect someone, or something like that. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way? One does not become actually free from the human
condition in order to be beaten to a pulp by someone – anyone – who chooses to let themselves continue being run by blind
nature’s instinctual survival passions. RESPONDENT: ... the intelligence that operated when enlightened (much better/freed than the normal experience of it) ... RICHARD: If I may ask? In what way is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal? (...) RESPONDENT: ... let’s say that the energy of thought was flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/blockages existing in this psyche which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego. RICHARD: Okay ... let us (provisionally) say that then: could/ did/ can the energy of thought, flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/ blockages existing in that psyche, which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego, suss out that Being Itself is a contingent ‘Being’? RESPONDENT: No, as I was ‘Being’. RICHARD: In what way, then, is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/ freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal? * RICHARD: ... what is intelligent about advocating pacifism, for example, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same? RESPONDENT: Realizing that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it? RICHARD: What is intelligent about having such a realisation and, doing nothing fundamental about it, enabling the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world via facile compliance? RESPONDENT: I can answer from experience … what I tend to do when a bully boy and/or feisty femme hits me is to hit back with overwhelming force in the moment if the circumstances allow, or if not, at a time of my own choosing and tenfold. RICHARD: If I may point out? The query you are answering is about facile compliance upon realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it and yet doing nothing fundamental about it ... and not about either an immediate, albeit circumstantial, retaliation in kind with overwhelming force or opportunistic retaliation of a tenfold forceful kind despite that realisation. RESPONDENT: In fact, revenge is one of the urges that I can’t resist. RICHARD: What is intelligent about being aware that revenge is one of the irresistible urges and yet, even though realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, doing nothing fundamental about such urges? RESPONDENT: The overwhelming force, as I know myself quite well, would not exclude death for the offender if there’s serious and intentional damage done, like rape or mutilation or attempted murder. RICHARD: Again ... what is intelligent about knowing quite well that either the immediate or opportune vindictive force would not exclude death for the bully boy/feisty femme (depending upon both the intention of that predator and the severity of their predation) yet, even though realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, doing nothing fundamental about that irresistible urge? RESPONDENT: However, if I contributed to the slap ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As the query regarding an enlightened intelligence advocating facile compliance to the bully boys/feisty femmes is about realising that one *is* as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it then what you are saying by way of an answer would look something like this when contextualised:
As anyone who nurses malice and sorrow (and thus their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) to their bosom is as guilty as the one impelled by same to deliver the first slap your ‘if’ qualifier has no relevance to the topic under discussion. RESPONDENT: ... [However, if I contributed to the slap ], and although I condemn physical violence ... RICHARD: If I may ask? Why do you condemn – ‘censure, denounce, deprecate, disapprove of’ (Oxford Dictionary) – physical violence? Could it be because of realising that, even though one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, one is not doing anything fundamental about it, perchance? RESPONDENT: ... [However, if I contributed to the slap, and although I condemn physical violence], I won’t fight back and I wouldn’t offer the other cheek either. RICHARD: As ‘offer the other cheek’ is but another way of describing a pacifistic/appeasement type of response it would appear that the intelligence which advocates same is not [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal after all. You do seem to be having some difficulty in substantiating your claim, eh? * RESPONDENT: [Realizing that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it?] Or that if it were to turn the slap back, it would turn the situation into a … ummm … war of countless slaps and thus perpetuate a vicious circle of violence? RICHARD: As all that is needed to do is point to the example of 1939-45 (where responding massively in kind not only did not perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence but resulted in three previously belligerent autocratic states becoming pacific democratic states) then what is intelligent about not using physical restraint/force when necessary? RESPONDENT: Hmm ... the primary cause of war is the fight by individuals/ groups/ countries over limited resources, in other words: competitiveness. RICHARD: The primary cause of a bully boy’s/feisty femmes’ war, the aggressive fight by that individual’s autocratically-led group/country over (purportedly limited) resources, could indeed be said to be that bully boy’s/feisty femmes’ belligerent competitiveness. RESPONDENT: You’re talking about overt/physical warfare, not about the psychological/ covert type. RICHARD: I did take your usage of the word ‘slap’ to mean the overt/physical wallop-clout-whack-thump-biff type of slap ... and, given that you were responding to me asking just what is intelligent about advocating pacifism, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same, it was quite reasonable to do so. Therefore, as you responded with nothing other than a variation on the scriptural ‘violence begets violence’ adage of yore I, of course, provided a well-known/ well-documented example of what a load of bosh that is. RESPONDENT: These covert wars exist even within the EU between otherwise democratic nations, there are rifts and disagreements as with any union/group. Another Younger Dryas in 100 years, take prosperity away from people, levers and controls collapse and democracies turn into autocracies … while war breaks loose. RICHARD: Even were your futuristic New Ice Age scenario ever to actually come about how would it demonstrate that, by responding massively in kind to three autocratic states’ belligerence between 1939 and 1945, a vicious cycle of violence was thus perpetuated (by turning that belligerent situation into a war of countless slaps) 165 years after the outbreak of hostilities? Quite frankly, whatever causal connection you are seeing between World War II and a hypothetical mini-ice age five generations hence eludes comprehension. RESPONDENT: Humans prefer to compete than to cooperate when survival takes over thinking ... RICHARD: More accurately ... normal human beings are compelled to compete, rather than cooperate, when the savage survival passions have dominion over the tender survival passions. RESPONDENT: ... war is in the flesh and bones. RICHARD: War is not in flesh and bones ... war exists only in the psyche. RESPONDENT: Have you watched ‘Delicatessen’? RICHARD: I have never even heard of it. Meanwhile, back at the subject to hand, in what way is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] when enlightened when it advocates pacifism, for example, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same? * RICHARD: And just in case the latter [now duplicated immediately above] is not clear enough: if every otherwise intelligent non-dictatorial/ non-bandit/ non-criminal/ non-rapacious/ non-pillaging type of person were to actually put into practice, as a world-wide reality, those unliveable doctrines which bodiless deities prescribe then in a remarkably short period of time all babies will be being born with bully boys and feisty femmes as parents ... and with no alternate care-giver/ role-model anywhere to be found. RESPONDENT: Have you heard of the dark age prior to the ‘dark age’? RICHARD: Yes ... essentially there were two ages known as ‘dark’ (ignorant/ unenlightened): the period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West to the fall of Constantinople [more specifically between the fall of Rome and the appearance of vernacular documents] and the period between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the historical period in Greece (and other Aegean countries). RESPONDENT: Why do you say that there’s a danger for another dark age (with all this information technology)? RICHARD: Ha ... the day may come when this era is more aptly re-named the era of misinformation/disinformation technology. RESPONDENT: Is there less ‘substance’ conveyed? RICHARD: No, there is actually more substance than ever being conveyed and yet, as it is generally swamped by a prodigious output of egregious factoids, fantasies and fictions endlessly spawned by neo-puritanical social engineers posing as public-health watchdogs, big-brother behaviourists in the guise of left-wing libertarians, religio-political/ religio-philosophical latter-day luddites (adroitly re-inventing themselves in the form of environmentalists/ conservationists/ preservationists), mystico-spiritual shamans masquerading as psychotherapists under the name ‘parapsychology’, and so on and so forth, dominating virtually all channels of communication, both mainstream and marginalised, it largely goes unnoticed. RESPONDENT: In my opinion, the primary cause for the emergence of a new dark age is fear and repression. RICHARD: As a new dark age is mainly coming from the east to the west the primary cause of its emergence is the failure of materialism to provide meaning to life (as epitomised by existentialist thought around the turn of the nineteenth/ twentieth century which, not all that coincidentally, was around about the time when oriental thought began to gain an ever-increasing grip on occidental thought). * RESPONDENT: In other words, how can you know what a dark age is if you haven’t went through it? RICHARD: Primarily by studying historical texts in conjunction with archaeological findings and, to a certain extent, sifting through folklore, myths, legends, and so on. RESPONDENT: But surely there were some enlightened/ un-ignorant individuals during these eras, yet collectively there was a period of chaos and unrest for European people primarily due to the migrations and the ensuing insecurity that followed. RICHARD: Let me see if I am following your line of thought: I point out that were every otherwise intelligent non-dictatorial/ non-bandit/ non-criminal/ non-rapacious/ non-pillaging type of person to actually put into practice, as a world-wide reality, those unliveable doctrines which bodiless deities prescribe then in a remarkably short period of time all babies will be being born with bully boys and feisty femmes as parents – and with no alternate care-giver/ role-model anywhere to be found – purely as a way of illustrating that there is nothing intelligent whatsoever about advocating pacifism, for example, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same ... and your response is to say that surely there were some enlightened/ un-ignorant individuals during the two western ages known as ‘dark’ (ignorant/ unenlightened). Do you realise that it is secular intelligence you are saying must surely have existed during those periods? * RESPONDENT: Is not the very existence of actual freedom dependent upon the existence of the instinctual passions? RICHARD: No, on the contrary, it is the very absence of the affective faculty/ identity in toto which characterises the actual freedom of being a flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: In contrast to enlightenment (which is dependent upon malice and sorrow being extant). RICHARD: Aye ... or, more specifically, upon ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon self-realisation) remaining extant. * RICHARD: So much for ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’ RESPONDENT: Ha … if it’s not personal, so much for it indeed ... but it is personal (everyone is a child). RICHARD: The three references provided as a footnote unambiguously refer to juveniles ... specifically described as (1) young children ... and (2) little children ... and (3) infants. Vis.: [snip biblical quotes]. As for your parenthesised ‘everyone is a child’ comment I see you have expanded on this theme elsewhere:
Just for starters I am not presumptively rejecting everything spiritual (let alone emotionally) ... I experientially explored same, night and day, for eleven years and there was nothing sensible to be found anywhere. When saying ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’ Mr. Jesus is not referring to an inner child as the accompanying text clearly shows. The properties of what is known in a certain school of psychology as an ‘inner child’ are (not surprisingly) psychological ... of, affecting, or pertaining to the mental and emotional state of a person. The word ‘suffer’, in the context of ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, means allow, permit, and so on. Vis.: [snip dictionary definition]. The expression ‘to come unto me’, in the given context, simply means ‘to come to me’ (...). The psychological concept known as ‘inner child’ not only did not exist prior to the twentieth century no first century equivalent was even implied (let alone intended). Vis.: [snip biblical quotes]. If you wish to read into ‘as a little child’ (aka being childlike) something other than what is conveyed – as in your ‘inner child’ psychological concept – only to criticise others for not taking what you see as [quote] ‘the intended metaphorical meaning’ [endquote] then that is your business. RESPONDENT: What being childlike (‘as a little child’) means to you ... RICHARD: In the context under discussion ... being meek, submissive, dutiful, obedient (as to an earthly father in that era). RESPONDENT: ... and what do you think meant to Mr. Jesus Christ? RICHARD: There is no need to think anything ... here it is (straight from the horse’s mouth as it were):
RESPONDENT: Don’t you think that a psychic archetype termed ‘child’ exists in the human psyche in the same way as the anima/animus or the wise man or the hero are? RICHARD: It makes no difference either way what one thinks: the fact remains that Mr. Jesus, all the while insisting that infants/little children/young children be allowed to come to him for a ritual laying-on of hands and an other-worldly blessing, was actively working his will in such a way as to ensure all future babies would be born with bully boys and feisty femmes as parents ... and with no alternate care-giver/ role-model anywhere to be found. So much for ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, eh? RICHARD: May I suggest, as a starting point of an examination into your deeply held belief, reading again what I demonstrated (with accredited quotes) in my last post to you? That is: Mr. Buddha’s ‘freedom’ is only attainable after physical death? Is this not why there is no peace on earth? RESPONDENT: Richard, it is not clear to me that, according to you ... RICHARD: Oh, it is not ‘according’ to me ... the example I provided (with the accredited quotes) was according to Mr. Sayagyi Thray Sithu U Ba Khin (Mr. S. N. Goenka’s acknowledged Master). He wrote in 1981: [quote]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and Arahants, pass into Parinibbana, reaching the end of suffering’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Whether: a) Buddha left a legacy to his community (Bhikkhus and others), a legacy under which freedom is attainable only after physical death. RICHARD: He did indeed (if he ever lived at all). This is because his ‘freedom’ is a metaphysical freedom; that is, a ‘freedom’ from samsara, the endless round of birth and death and rebirth. The Buddhist ‘Parinirvana’ (the same as the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’) is an after-death ‘freedom’ ... just the same as the Christian’s ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. The same holds true for all religions – all spiritualism and all mysticism – and their blatantly self-seeking words will leap out at one, upon reading the hallowed scriptures with both eyes open, and speak for themselves. RESPONDENT: And hence this legacy is responsible for no peace on earth. RICHARD: Yes, peace-on-earth is sacrificed for a spurious after-death ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless Peace’. It is their post-mortem reward of ‘Immortality’ ... which is arrant selfishness by any description. RESPONDENT: Or: b) Buddha in some way personally responsible for no peace on earth because he ‘postponed’ freedom until the physical death. RICHARD: Aye (and this is according to me); the blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the ‘Unknown’, stopped short of the final goal ... the ‘Unknowable’. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the ‘Self’ or ‘Spirit’ or ‘Soul’ or ‘Atma’ (by whatever name) ... and an ego-less ‘Self’ or ‘Spirit’ or ‘Soul’ or ‘Atma’ (by whatever name) is still an identity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour and the glory of the Altered State Of Consciousness, closer examination reveals that these ‘Great’ persons had – and have – feet of clay. Bewitched and beguiled by the promise of majesty and mystery, they have led humankind astray. Preaching submission or supplication they keep a benighted ‘humanity’ in appalling tribulation and distress. The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the identity in its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and everyone. RESPONDENT: Or: c) Some other possibility which I have not thought of. RICHARD: It is not only you that has ‘not thought of’ it ... nobody I have met or read about (presumably 6.0 billion living and maybe 4.0 peoples having lived) have ever thought that these revered peoples could be so alarmingly wrong. An actual freedom is entirely new in human history. It is self-centredness (to the utmost degree) to sacrifice peace-on-earth for the ‘Peace That Passeth All
Understanding’. RICHARD: And then there is the matter of one’s fellow human beings. Some of them – in fact at times a lot of them – are desirous of invading the country that one is living peacefully in, with the avowed intent of killing, torturing, raping, pillaging and subjugating oneself and one’s fellow citizens. If one holds a strong and passionate belief in not causing any pain and suffering to other sentient beings then one must be more than a fruitarian ... one must be a pacifist as well. This amounts to hanging out a sign – if everybody else in the country one lives in adopts this specific belief – which says, in effect: ‘Please feel free to invade us, we will not fight back, for we hold firmly to the principle of not causing pain and suffering to any sentient being whatsoever’ (the Tibetan situation is a particular case in point.) Thus anarchy would rule the world – all because of a belief system handed down by the Saints and the Sages, the Messiahs and the Avatars, the Redeemers and the Saviours, the Prophets and the Priests, century after century. All this is predicated upon there being an enduring ‘I’ that is going to survive the death of the body and go on into the paradisiacal After-Life that is ‘my’ post-mortem reward for being a ‘good’ person during ‘my’ sojourn on this planet earth. RESPONDENT: This hardly need be the case. I am both a vegan and a pacifist and gladly wear a sign that says, ‘I will do you no harm’. RICHARD: You can eat whatever you choose as far as I am concerned ... but know full well that by being a pacifist in this world as it is with people as they are then you are relying upon other human beings to risk their lives to protect you and your ilk. Skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to sleep somewhat peacefully in your bed at night. These are all people behind the badge ... your fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Each of these entities are as much responsible for the supposed non-peace the claim to protects us form as the alleged ‘peace’ they preserve. RICHARD: This is a ‘straw man’ argument ... I never said they were not as much responsible and I never said they preserved any peace. I said that they protect you and your ilk so that you can sleep ‘somewhat’ peacefully. May I ask? What is this ‘supposed non-peace’? Are you still in a state of denial about all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide? We had an extensive correspondence about this some months ago. And you told me that you ‘bear our conversations in mind’. RESPONDENT: One does not create Peace through defence. RICHARD: I never said that one does ... only the elimination of identity in its totality will enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent. Until that happens on a global scale, some semblance of law and order will need to be maintained at the point of a gun. Hence pacifists are wankers. RESPONDENT: But one creates Peace through the defencelessness that arises with the understanding that it really just doesn’t matter if one is alive or dead, with possessions or no. RICHARD: Aye ... this is the ‘turn the other cheek’ decree that you found so ‘comical’ (above). When put in practice it means that the bully-boys rule the world. RESPONDENT: It will be as you choose it to be. If you believe that the preservation of a particular body is important, then yes, defence is a comforting commodity. If one is angered when what they believe are their possessions are taken, then yes, a police force is a comforting commodity. RICHARD: I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be one myself for eleven years. But the fact remains that you are only able stay alive to practice it by relying upon other human beings to risk their lives to protect you and your ilk. Skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge ... your fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Personally, I have no particular care for either life or possessions. RICHARD: Hmm ... do you lock and bolt your doors and windows? Do you keep your money in a bank – and thus protected by armed security personnel – or out in the open on a tray on the kitchen table for anyone on the street to see through the open front door? If you have a car ... do you wind up the windows and lock the doors in a public car-park ... and remove the keys from the ignition? If you use a bicycle ... do you chain it to a lamp-post? Need I go on? I have many more bits and pieces like this that expose pacifism ... as I said, I was a pacifist for eleven years and it was becoming aware of minutiae like these that showed me how silly I was to allow principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who declared that they were not the body – to rule my life ... because I am this body. The military personnel and custom officers are the locks on the doors and the bars on the windows (the borders) of the country you live in. RESPONDENT: Currently I have an abundance of both, I enjoy this. RICHARD: And why are you able to do this? Only by relying upon other human beings to risk their lives to protect you and your ilk. Skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge ... your fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Tomorrow either might be gone – it makes no difference to me, and what it may mean to the rest of the world – that is on them. RICHARD: Hmm ... any plans for noble martyrdom in the pipeline? Or is this but flatulence talking? RESPONDENT: I ask for no protection, wish no particular law enforced. RICHARD: Then stop skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world and the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on. If that is too complicated to do, then do this simple thing: take all your money out of the bank and keep it on the kitchen table and leave all your windows and doors unlocked and unbarred and open night after night and day after day, eh? After all, you ‘have no particular care for possessions’, you say. RESPONDENT: But for the rest of the world – that is on them – they have asked for these military forces you describe to enforce their particular belief system – they have them. It does seem, however, that very few have found any peace through that wish being granted. RICHARD: It is not peace being sought but some respite or even a truce ... any military or police
force is but armed protection from the bully-boys of the world. Ever-vigilant protection is not peace. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I gained immeasurably from our discussion. (...) Our communications netted heaps of valuable and revealing information for me ... which I have put to good use. RESPONDENT: That is Wonderful. Perhaps you will share with me some of the profit you uncovered during our conversations. (...) It being put to good use would never be in doubt. RICHARD: Golly ... to list all the benefit I gained would be far too long for this post. What
immediately comes to mind, however, is being able to share with other would-be pacifists what wanking And I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be a pacifist myself for eleven years. But I noticed that I locked and bolted my doors and windows and I noticed that I kept my money in a bank – and thus protected by armed security personnel – and not out in the open on a tray on the kitchen table for anyone on the street to see through the open front door. I noticed that I wound up the windows and locked the doors of my car in a public car-park ... and removed the keys from the ignition. I noticed that when I dispensed with the car and took to riding my bicycle that I chained it to a lamp-post ... it was becoming aware of minutiae like these that showed me how silly I was to allow principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who declared that they were not the body – to rule my life. Because I am this body living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and the military personnel and custom officers are the locks on the doors and the bars on the windows (the borders) of the country one lives in. It is the gullible youth and dedicated career soldiers that do all the action whilst the pusillanimous pacifist can sit safely at home ... all the while casting guilt trips at those who have the intestinal fortitude to get off their backsides and do something about maintaining law and order at the point of a gun where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. The Tibetan situation is a particular case in point ... pacifism RICHARD: Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge – your fellow human beings – and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. And I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be a pacifist myself for eleven years. But I noticed that I locked and bolted my doors and windows and I noticed that I kept my money in a bank – and thus protected by armed security personnel – and not out in the open on a tray on the kitchen table for anyone on the street to see through the open front door. I noticed that I wound up the windows and locked the doors of my car in a public car-park ... and removed the keys from the ignition. I noticed that when I dispensed with the car and took to riding my bicycle that I chained it to a lamp-post ... it was becoming aware of minutiae like these that showed me how silly I was to allow principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who declared that they were not the body – to rule my life. Because I am this body living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and the military personnel and custom officers are the locks on the doors and the bars on the windows (the borders) of the country one lives in. It is the gullible youth and dedicated career soldiers that do all the action whilst the pusillanimous pacifist can sit safely at home ... all the while casting guilt trips at those who have the intestinal fortitude to get off their backsides and do something about maintaining law and order at the point of a gun where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. RESPONDENT: Richard, as we had discussed previously, whether one feels guilty about their chosen profession is decided as them. RICHARD: Of course ... but, as well you know, that is not what I was referring to. I was saying that hypocrisy enables a pusillanimous pacifist to adopt an ‘holier-than-thou’ approach ... whilst reaping the benefits of the other person’s intestinal fortitude. Given that all human beings are driven by instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire, then war is an essential facility for obtaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’ – at the point of a gun. This will continue to be the situation until every last man, woman and child on earth is free of the human condition. It does not make war any less ghastly ... but it is a fact that whilst humans are as-they-are, then war is here to stay. Anyone in a state of denial about this just does not understand the human condition. This is |
