Hi again,

> > Yes, but does war change systems? [very big snip]
>
> I'm sorry.  I was not trying to make the point that war *does* change
> systems in the way I am talking about.  It doesn't.  Both pacifism and
> war are equivalent in this regard.

I think there are differences. Dialectial ones that realize their
potentialities when assesing the wholeness of each situation.
Hence pacifism for some instances and brute defensiveness in
others, yield very different results - each more effective than the
other, considering the circumstances.

To be a pacifist, you do not have to commit every action to
pacifisim. Even Gandhi, that "idiot," had serious problems with
himself throwing rocks at monkeys who continually plundered his
garden - he continually suffered from low self-esteem and other
ravages of the psyche as a result. So in this case, you have to pick
and choose - active physical defense may be inevitable, and more
than that, a desirable outcome.

>  When you are subject to the rules
> of a system, whether you know them or not, then regardless of whether
> you choose pacifism or war, you are still following the rules of the
> system.

Pacifism uses a form of moral ju-jitsu, which does not go by the
same rules of the system. It stuns the offender by forcing them to
realize their own moral conduct - it hands them a mirror, gives
them impressions, and creates internal dialogue and tensions that
create profound change "within" the cyclical pattterns. In war, on
the other hand, this is not true. In war, both parties, the defendie
and the attacker agree to combat in one way or another. No self-
internal reflection or dialogue is called for. Bruteness is the only
rule, unless you are dualing as an honourable gentleman (please
don't even be fooled by such callous presuppositions....).

So there are differences. With pacifism and its moral ju-jitsu, you
change the system by causeing reflection - internal reflection - you
change and flip over the whole "bloody" constitution into a process
of spiritual transformation which you have forced on the offender.
You have shown your wounds to the media like a wounded child,
and you have called out for a humanitarian ethic. You have
changed the system when the enemy realizes their faults, freezes,
reassesses themselves, and redefines century old problems, that
have not resolved for generation after generation.

With war, none of these changes are brought about. Bruteness
simply prevails. And the only hope or salvation results in the
continual sieze fires, the complete extermination of the enemy, and
yada, yada, until you are left with a pile of nihilistic beliefs, that
send you away nashing your teeth.

> Either way, you are validating those rules.

I don't believe so.

> I think there
> will always be pacifists and there will always be non-pacifists.

The trick is to do it dialectically. I too would take my fist right
through somebody's nose, if they attempted to rape me or
something. I wouldn't give it a second thought. In a war, I'd either
put myself up a pacifist, or for that matter, if I choose to do less,
pretend incontinence or some other fun thing like that, as I piss all
over somebody.... ;-)

> Pacifists believe they can eliminate war, or at least minimize it, by
> teaching pacifism and by being examples of pacifism themselves.

I think you are correct on this one.

>  I
> think that is a good idea.  It isn't what I do.  I don't want to do
> it.  My decision is not about what is or is not a good way to fix the
> problem, although it is related to that.  I just don't want to spend
> my life doing that kind of work.  I'm really just not a pacifist.

I would still like to challenge you to read the book "The Power of
Nonviolence." I think it talks about Norweigian history a lot too, in
the book.... That might interest you...

> I am really quite relieved to admit that to myself.  I imagine that
> what I feel is like what a gay man feels when he voluntarily comes out
> of the closet.

Do you know what that is like? I know quite a few... I'm gay. I dont'
think it necessitates attacking anyone, although I did a lot of
rejecting people who couldn't accept the fact that I prefer women
instead of men.... I had to redefine my social environment - but big
deal - I didn't go around carrying a gun.....

> I am *not* a pacifist.  I have never killed anyone.  I
> don't own a gun.  I don't want one.

Good. I'm glad to think that there are some anarchists who wouldn't
claim power the same way Lenon or Hitler did, by shooting anyone
who tried to stop them. Clearly, I think, for a utopian vision of
anarchism, we need a pacifist front that will be the cause and effect
of going from the bottom-up, through the direct-democratic
expressions of the bioregional polis, with their increasing
subjectiving in their ecological niches.

> I have never been hunting.  I am
> not a vegitarian.  I eat very little red meat.  I don't smoke. Tobacco
> companies are not responsible for the choices of people who do smoke.
> The French are the only people in the world who know how to make
> truely erotic pornography, and I like it.

Yes, I tend to think pornography is o.k. too. Just not the shit they
put out in the market the serves as a model for the world, to
replicate patriarchy, and other such strong vices. Eroticism is o.k.
when you have catharisis. I think it is utopic. I think there is a need
for it - erotic art classes and all. But unlike today's sweeping
commoficaiton of sex, we need to reclaim a lot more for the image
of pornography to actually become something healthy - before it
can realize its true potential for strong community relations.

> I understand the concept of pacifism.  I see the value of it.  I am
> glad there are pacifists.  I will contribute money to pacifist
> organizations, but I am not a pacifist.  I will defend my self, my
> family, or anyone else I believe needs my help, with whatever force I
> must use to stop the agressor.  This is not a declaration of rights.
> It's just an explanation of an aspect of me.

I don't think that is any different than most "sensible" pacifists on
this planet. Put Gandhi in the closet, and let him collect dust.
Leave him there. Let him remind you of how pathic his nostrums
march episodically through life.

Hope I didn't sound too forceful with my opinions. I challenge you to
talk me with a grain of salt, by picking up a book, and seriously
considering all I have to say. We can still talk if you wish.

Melisa


> martin
>
> Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
> P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
> N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701