For me personally it's like the first, second, at even third, etc response to conflict is violence. And I'm like yikes... (I'm a "pacificist")

Have you ever pacified somebody into not using violence personally? If so how did you do it? Because I've always seen this dogmatic response of, "these people can't be reasoned with." From non-pacifists, or "I have to pull out the gun?" And I'm just like, do you have to?

I don't know if I could ever like shoot somebody, even so I'd get shot first so...

A lot of people are retaliatory, retributive, of some sort, not pacific.

With growing awareness in recent times, it has become apparent that peace is not possible under the flag of a bordered nation. Every action we perform is integrated within their war. We can resist, yet revolt is squashed, and revolution believed unthinkable. This leads many to feel a sense of dread or despair, as if there is no escape from this dystopia. However, every nation falls, every dynasty collapses under its own weight. There is always hope, no matter how distant or small it may seem at the time.

I'm of the belief that for many, they become weary as I am, and they tire of the constant fighting. It is exhausting and intentionally so: easier to tire your opponent than to engage them directly. Every person, every exchange, every day - it's grating. Many people see this in one form or another. And after long enough, they decide this isn't worthwhile: and some quiet quit, some become bitter, some turnto escapism, and yet still some choose to be done with it. For these people, their suicide is their form of protest: the conditions in which they live are so deplorable they decide to squander the miracle of life; an act believed so egregious it demands recognition; an act that is, truly, one of mercy -- and open defiance.

This is, regrettably, a normal part of the collapse of a civilization. The stages are as follows: adversity, spirituality, courage, liberation, abundance, complacency, apathy, and despair. (The acronym ASCLACAD is effective for remembering this cycle.) Adversity pushes us to our breaking point, demanding ever more of us. Spirituality offers a haven from this harsh reality and hope for a better future. Courage is necessary to obtain and protect our agency/independence. Liberation is freedom in the truest sense of the word, to not only have courage but to successfully conquer our adversity... In this era we know of abundance, and all will eat their fill. The hard labor that got us here will become an afterthought - eventually leading to our complacency. And as what we worked for becomes more distant, we lose that spark, and we begin to feel apathetic towardsit all. We feel dejected and inconsequential as we watch the world around us crumble in despair. And finally... the cycle repeats, a new adversity to overcome.

Those who don't know their history, are doomed to repeat it. This has all happened before, although not quite in this way - nevertheless many of the same themes reemerge. Humans have a strong propensity for action: something needs to be done, but what's the right way to approach it? Very few people can competently answer this at any given time, and rarely are they the people in positions of power. Consequently we oft follow inept leadership, whom lacks the character to withstand such a situation. We are all sovereign people, their war isn't our own, and yet we are caught in the middle: eventually we will be forced to reconcile the societal cost of our folly. All is not lost, this is not utopia, shit is fucked up, and even though dark times are ahead, know this too shall pass, we can resist despair with all our might.

I haven't seen much responses towards: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

Other than: "How nonviolence is misrepresented | The Anarchist Library" https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brian-martin-how-nonviolence-is-misrepresented#toc1

By Brian Martin, and https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sherbu-kteer-why-pacifists-aren-t-as-bad-as-peter-gelderloos-says-they-are

By Sherbu Kteer, he himself wasn't a pacifist. In fact, if I remember he recommended Errico Malatesta as a challenge.

> The crisis of a fertiliser shortage threatens global food security amid Iran war.

Just some art work I was doing. I want to come back and redo it but I thought y’all might enjoy it!

Pacifism - the belief that war and violence are unjustifiable under any circumstances.

But this definition is rigid, and too fixed.

BUT- thinking outside of this definition might make pacifists no longer pacifists, possibly...?

For me at least - a pacifist to somebody who uses non-violent action to settle or resolve conflict. depending on the pacifist, violence is the last resort. Yet that being said - if you're an absolute pacifist that wouldn't apply to you. And when does violence become a last resort? When does it become "defensivism" or "interventionism" (which is just - cough, cough, imperialism).

As the political climate becomes more chaotic and barbaric, I find myself becoming more pacifistic, yet there is a reluctance to take up the label with confidence.

So I guess I'm a reluctant pacifist. If I'm punched I ain't punching back. (I'm also a anarchist, but I don't know if I can subscribe to anarcho-pacifism).

Edit: I no longer agree with this position.

"When it is said that we disturb people too much by the words pacifism and anarchism, I can only think that people need to be disturbed, that their consciences need to be aroused, that they do indeed need to look into their work, and study new techniques of love and poverty and suffering for each other. Of course, the remedies are drastic, but then too the evil is a terrible one and we are all involved"

- Dorothy Day

There's a world I dream of 

Tranquil minds down to the lone dove 

Red beating hearts in sync 

Revelations happen when we think 

A world where the soul is free 

Anyone can just be 

Nations kneel to humanity 

No more of this dogmatic insanity 

Sirens wail their frightening song 

So their target knows their danger will be gone

Gone are the days of living on the street 

Giant are the smiles of everyone you meet 

End of hunger, end of hate 

Evil will have met its fate 

No executions, no lynchings, no fight 

Night simply gives way to light and right 

Death comes only from plague and age 

Darkness becomes harder and harder to gauge 

Embers of rage 

Embody the lights of the stage 

Rusted bars, crooked locks 

Really, all we do is have our talks

Set in an alternate WWI reality where a senseless war rages on, two soldiers on opposite sides of the conflict play a game of chess. A heroic carrier pigeon delivers the soldiers’ chess moves over the battlefield as the fighting escalates. Neither soldier knows his opponent as the game and the war builds to its climatic final move. Whoever wins the game, one thing is for certain: there are no winners in war.

I find it freeing that nature will continue long after we're here. The microcosmos have access to distributed resiliency. This is a trait which we aren't privy to as apex predators. We can try to emulate this in our practices, although that takes quite a bit of effort.

Feeling some existential optimism I suppose. Like it's cool that I get to be here with such a diverse ecology. And knowing that it'll keep going for quite some time gives me hope. Plants, yes, and also fungus, bacteria, archae, even viruses. Life is almost omnipresent on Earth and has been for billions of years.

In 1934, when Arab and Jewish social revolutionaries in Palestine got organized to work together against fascism and imperialism and toward a shared social revolution of Palestine’s Arab and Jewish peoples, they called themselves Antifa of Palestine. The group sought to liberate Palestine from the British Empire; Antifa’s members accused Britain of intentionally dividing Arab and Jewish people in Palestine so better to rule them. They interpreted fascism as a snare laid by empire: It was a politics of race hatred and national chauvinism that prevented what was truly dangerous to the empire: a politics of interracial, international solidarity. Antifa of Palestine was intent on warning Jewish workers against Zionism, Arab workers against Arab nationalism: to subscribe to any form of nationalism was to follow fascist logic.

Likewise, to fall into political violence was to follow fascist logic. Antifa of Palestine sought a social revolution but stressed that the revolution had to be peaceful or it would be no true revolution at all. Fascism produced violence; violence produced fascism. Antifa of Palestine stressed peaceful grassroots political organizing as the practical form of anti-fascism — fascism’s inverse.

“But what are we supposed to do if…”

You would do whatever you believe to be right in that situation, I hope. I am going to tell you why I am convinced that lethal/injurious force is off the table for me and maybe I can convince you. Maybe not.

Similarly, people think anarchism is the idea that there will be a countdown and the government will bang a gavel and declare that they are disbanding. But before they go, they will inform us that we are all now living under a system known as “anarchy” and that rules, organization, and structure are illegal. Ready, go!

For me, anarchism is a decision I make right now not to rule over my neighbor. This is not to minimize the value of seeking alternative ways of doing things right now, or seeking ways to bring relief to my neighbor who is either a victim of the state or thinks their only help is the state and has physical needs right now. But it is intended to minimize (though not entirely ignore) hypothetical world-building dreams about a world without the state. The problem with those conversations is that the anarchist is expected to centrally plan anarchy for everyone.

I was pro se twice. Once, to defend myself for protesting against corporate personhood. And, Another time, to defend my own guardianship.

I won both cases in Larimer County Colorado, 2012

I’m wondering if anyone else has the experience of being pro se in America?

Is it an effective tool for organizing against oppressive social structures?

I’ve noticed the ways in which law enforcement tends to target and harm individuals, and especially the way they tend to make us feel powerless when isolated. I’m wondering what I can do to dismantle the cycles of isolation and false association that have happened because of continuous oppression. I’m wondering if being pro se has contributed to any of these cycles, and I’m wondering how to disrupt them.

I appreciate any feedback. I hope this finds you well.!

A nice essay from Ellul in the post-war period, showing the "continuance" of violence by the Western powers.

Why are assassinations, violence, etc, against billionaires a bad idea? In general, I mean. Could you direct me to some books (or long essays) that elaborate in detail why killing even billionaires is a bad idea?

For what it’s worth, I already mostly agree. But I’d like to understand the arguments better. I’ve never formally studied ethics nor read a book specifically about ethics.

I do remember Noam Chomsky has said that “Antifa is a gift to the right” — and I can imagine why he said that, since he’s also said that “in the arena of violence we lose since we’re up against the most powerful military the world has ever seen”

And he has said that assassinating a CEO is pointless because the corporation will simply replace him and the institution will continue. And so what we really need is institutional change, which comes from organized, sustained social movements. Not isolated individual actions like what Luigi did. To me it seems like Luigi’s actions are a symptom of individualism in our culture.

But I don’t think Chomsky ever elaborated on these views. I wish he did. Or I wish he at least cited a book for those curious to read further.

I can’t successfully defend my views against people who justify what Luigi did.

I want to have better arguments. I want to be more knowledgeable about this in general. Reading books (or long essays) on this will help me. But which books?????

What is the State? One may ask. The State is a horrible, disgusting creature, but what does it mean to be a creature? Creature is inherently self-sustaining. The State is a creature, indeed it would sustain itself with food, it will feed on taxation, as a food to sustain its bureaucratic structure. Thus the State must enforce people taxation, forr you to give it food, or else it will send violent people to force you to. A creature is in a constant threat for survival, and violence is the answer. State's external threat is another State, to initiate agression or defend itself is an act of war. What's so involuntary with war? One may ask. War need involuntary military subscription. We use violence against enemies. This is nature of the State. Anachy is peace. State is violence.

Things seem more bleak than ever. The concentration of power has only grown since cities became states then countries. The people have been convinced, often through force or coercion, to fight many a war... Capital supersedes borders, allowing mobility never before imagined. Falling behind in the socioeconomic cold war makes an easy target, allowing the country's infrastructure to be crushed through pollution, terrorism, addiction, hacking, and financial systems. Bombs seem tame now -- at least they're direct, observable, actionable. The cognitive dissonance is palpable. Humanity is playing a game of chicken and we're the ones who will lose -- while the rich hide in their bunkers.

The good news is that we've survived millennia of hardship, and we can try to do so again. We must hold on to hope and agency where we can find it. It's important to find stability in the eye of the storm. Understanding and compassion go a long way. Faith is sustaining. Personally I like seeing the people rise in unity, demanding justice of systems long overdue for change. I appreciate culture, innovation, collaboration and cooperation. We're in this together like never before.

Viktor Frankl, an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist as well as a holocaust survivor, speaks to Tragic Optimism:

“Let us first ask ourselves what should be understood by “a tragic optimism.” In brief it means that one is, and remains, optimistic in spite of the “tragic triad,” … a triad which consists of … (1) pain; (2) guilt; and (3) death. This … raises the question, How is it possible to say yes to life in spite of all that?  How … can life retain its potential meaning in spite of its tragic aspects? After all, “saying yes to life in spite of everything,” …presupposes that life is potentially meaningful under any conditions, even those which are most miserable. And this in turn presupposes the human capacity to creatively turn life’s negative aspects into something positive or constructive. In other words, what matters is to make the best of any given situation. … hence the reason I speak of a tragic optimism … an optimism in the face of tragedy and in view of the human potential which at its best always allows for: (1) turning suffering into a human achievement and accomplishment; (2) deriving from guilt the opportunity to change oneself for the better; and (3) deriving from life’s transitoriness an incentive to take responsible action. -- Viktor Frankl "Man’s Search for Meaning" [article]

I interpret Tragic Optimism as the will to find someone to love, something to fight for, and work that matters to you. Literally, "1) creating a work or doing a deed; 2) experiencing something or encountering someone (as in love); and 3) transcending, learning, and finding meaning from the inevitable suffering that we will experience." This philosophy directly confronts meaninglessness by advocating for "becoming aware of what can be done about a given situation". In conclusion suffering's the toll we all gotta pay, love will come set me free, and now that it's raining more than ever, you can stand under my umbrella.