[VIDEO] 99.9% of People Are Good; Violent Conflict is Almost Always Avoidable.

in #religion7 years ago (edited)


"War," the modern cultural euphemism for the indiscriminate slaughter of complete strangers, has become accepted as a "normal" and even "natural" part of life. Birds, bees, sky, trees, mountains, oceans, war.


Have you ever thought how ridiculous it is

that so many individuals accept murder as an acceptable problem-solving mechanism and recourse for conflict resolution? Unless neurologically damaged, they would laugh at this idea if it were applied to a local situation with individuals they knew personally.

It is only when the witch doctors of politics, propaganda, and mass religion come together

and utilize mass mind control techniques that people begin to accept this retardation of thought. When vaguely labeled collectives are labeled as "evil," and individual hearts, minds, bodies, families, and communities cannot be seen, humans lose compassion.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Soon, it will be in your sight. And you will have to make a choice. Will you stand with life? Or accept that killing non-violent human beings is acceptable for the "greater good?" Will you sacrifice yourself and your loved ones first, as an example of what a fine, upstanding "citizen" should do?

We teach children that hitting is not an acceptable way to solve problems, and then tell them that war is a necessity.


~KafkA

IMG_6356.jpg


Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)

Sort:  

This is so true. Most people want peace. The 1% elite won't let it happen. :-(

It's not true. Indigenous civilizations warred constantly and brutally.

If you ask your circle of acquaintance if they would like to go to war, my guess is none would say yes, correct? Same with people I know. Nobody that I know wants war. I believe 99% don't want war, except for the people that profit from war.

I only want war when there is a threat to the country or its people. It's not a default position, it's a judgement based on the situation. Each situation is different. Sometimes war is warranted, sometimes it's not.

I agree. With all of the technology and various ways that we all have to communicate, it seems that war should ne easy to avoid. But it's not, because war is a profitable business.

The taking of non-violent individuals' lives in the name of a collective is always morally illegitimate.

@lostinsauce Did indigenous people fly airplanes and use smartphones to do complex mathematics instantaneously?

The point is that humans are not innately good. I think that's quite obvious.

That's a claim. Your argument is that because some indigenous peoples had wars that people are naturally "bad"?

No that's not his claim. He's just dispelling the idea that indigenous people, people without "sin" supposedly are always moral and upstanding. They were savage for the most part: enslaving one another, killing out of spite, warring constantly, etc.

Humans are innately bad because they're innately wild. Raise a child and anyone can tell.

Humans are innately bad because they're innately wild. Raise a child and anyone can tell.

I am raising a child. He has never been "innately bad."

Then why do you have to teach them to be good? If humans were innately good, you wouldn't have to teach them to say thank you or be gracious, they'd have natural gratitude. Humans are naturally self interested, we have to be taught to care about others.

No, just that they're not naturally good. I don't see just good or bad, but in between, neutral.

They're definitely naturally warlike, because war arose from nature. That doesn't make them bad, it just means that they saw some reason to fight and kill each other.

What is your definition of "nature," out of curiosity, and do you believe that the taking of innocent/non-violent life is always wrong?

I regard nature as the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Since war occurs among non-human species, it's natural by my definition.

And no, the taking of innocent lives is not wrong to me if it saves vastly more innocent lives than it costs.

I completely agree that almost 99.99999% of people are good and I'm pretty sure that most of the violent people were good in the past and they became violent and doing murders as a consequence of hard circumstances they witnessed. but sadly, the acts of those 0.001% unfortunately usually beat the good people and stand against peace. let's just hope they become better in the future however I don't think so

How would hard circumstances make a peaceful person violent?

I see you argue in every comment supporting peace and believe that peace is the nature of people.
why do you hate peace and support violence??
or you just want to be different here?

I don't hate peace. I hate untruth, lack of precision.

There isn't just good or evil disposition, most people are capable of both, and most are effectively neither (neutral).

Failing to recognize this begets moral complacency, which invites evil.

I disagree. History shows constantly people acting simply out of spite, out of desire and lust, out of greed. The way people define good is usually, "If neutral is zero, as long as you're not a 10/10 evil, then you're good." But that's not good. Good, really, innately, GOOD, is when you're sinless, which no one is.

Far too long war's have been fought in the name of an ideology. I think it's both a mixture of indoctrination and part of human's stupidity/ignorance. Not sure 99.99% being good is accurate, of course it also depends on your definition of what "good" is. I believe 1% of the population are psychopaths so that already makes it 99%, and there still are some selfish bastards out there. I assume ur speaking about the top of top steering the masses?

I'm fine with selfish bastards, as long as they do not violate me. But yeah, hell, even 99% is fine with me. It still proves their propaganda to be a total and utter falsehood.

Their propaganda, or rather indoctrination is definitly not a falsehood. It didn't make people inheretly evil but they have a massive influence on the general public's thinking and behaviour.

Peoples indifference to war is sick. It shows just how incredibly indoctrinated people are.

The other day I posted a picture on facebook that said Peace is Patriotic. People were taken back and said yes you're right peace is more patriotic than war. How is that not common knowledge?

Why do we need hundreds of antiwar protests? Why is war so mainstream and tolerated? Because that's what the politicians, military industrial complex, big businesses, warmongers and media talking heads want you to believe.

Sometimes war is a necessary evil.

It is never necessary to take non-violent, innocent lives in the name of a collective. It is always wrong.

Another unsubstantiated claim.

I completely agree with @kafkanarchy84 on this. War should not be justified, downplayed, or deemed acceptable by society just because the war mongers have given it this sugar coated "humanitarian" false image. War is unnecessary, it is evil, it needs to end, people need to find peaceful solutions to problems. Countries should not be invading other soverign countries to spread their version of "democracy, liberty, or whatever lie they chose to use to fool the public into believing that we are actually doing these countries a favor by invading them, ousting their leaders, killing civilians, stealing their resources and establishing more military bases. This is all NOT okay.

War is sometimes necessary. Sorry.

Fear is the greatest threat.

People who are not born in peace mostly suffer take the wrong path...

I think it's extremely important to point this out - and remember that in pretty much any war today (especially true in Syria) that the MAJORITY of people are non-combatants - they'd really just rather get on with their lives than fight.

Unfortunately these are the same people who also put up with an oppressive state, turning a blind eye to all sorts of state-abuses in 'peace time' while knowing they're going on.

The challenge in the future is to get people more engaged in politics (as in with a local anarchist 'P'), talking to people not-like-them more (a white working class friend of mine took his son to a mosque recently just so he could hang out with a few Muslims, that sort of thing) so we can all learn to work through minor-conflicts with people not like us from a ground up level, rather than us all retreating into our homes, siloing ourselves in bubbles of clones and letting the fucking state deal with 'the others', hence maybe why conflict persists?

Can I ask what leads you to believe that Syrians were oppressed? If by oppressed you mean that Syria was the only secular, nonsectarian and united country in the Near East, and civilians had free healthcare, free education all the way through a doctorate degree, no GMO's allowed in the country, no debt to the IMF, equality in education and the workplace for men and women. Religious tolerance and appreciation. A country where Christians did not feel persecuted, their church's were not desecrated, you probably didn't know if your neighbor was Shi'a or Sunni. Where Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc all lived peacefully. If that's oppressive to you.. then we have different definitions of the word.

Of course, this was all until a CIA staged uprising took place, and before Syria was invaded, raped, killed, destroyed by foreign countries led by the US. Before over 350k foreign mercenaries came into Syria to fight in this imposed war from over 80 countries. Before Syria was punished for not agreeing to a gas pipeline deal, and not bending over backwards to please it's neighbor "Israel". This is all before 2011, when Syria was one of the safest countries in the world.. yes.. Syria.. was safe, it was beautiful, it was inclusive, it was self sufficient, it was growing, it was prospering all in it's own way.. maybe not to Western standards but it sure as hell was what the majority of Syrians wanted.

Absolutely fair points - just bad paragraph construction on my part - when I used the Syria example I meant that referring to 'most people are not combatants'.

The next para is supposed to be more general, and you're right I guess technically this wouldn't apply to Syrians.

Apologies - I'll do better next comment (assuming I think posting anything here on Steemit is worth it) thanks for actually reading the comment!

It's okay, I write pretty extensively about Syria and like to correct misconceptions. Thank you for understanding.

Well said. Thanks for this. I agree, it is within the microcosm that the macrocosm can be changed. The state throws macro-level "problems" at us to make us feel powerless.

I can't solve world hunger!!

Right. But I can loan my neighbor 20 bucks when he needs something to eat.

That grassroots action on a massive scale, individual by individual, changes things.

Well said, or better yet, lend him yer chickens!

Non-violent conflict resolution methods are by no mean scarce and humans have been putting them to use for ages, we can think of diplomacy, mediation, negotiation and peace-building. There are a whole bunch of theories and studies being made to advance the techniques and models related to conflict resolution so we can safely say, during our era, that many governments and leaders work hard avoiding peace and peaceful problem resolutions and that without any doubt.

Right. These sociopaths know what they are doing.

I love it man. I get this type of reasoning from people all the time for my views. They look at the work I do and the news I provide and they say, "but you have an "anti-war" bias". They have been told this is a bias to stay away from. That it leads to Nazis taking over Europe, and the Killing Fields. If only those peaceful "antiwar" proponents were charge, so many more people would have been killed.

I simple ask them "Wait, who is "pro-war"?". The puzzled look is enough for me to know they still have their humanity.

Very well said!

So, America shouldn't have fought the Nazis, then?

Who is "America"? Who is the "Nazis"?
Individuals pull triggers.

American army, Nazi army, both made of individuals, yes.

Should the American army have fought the Nazi army? Was that a righteous war?

That's not the right question. If innocent, non-violent lives were lost, then no, those deaths were not "righteous" or "justified" by masturbatory ideas of a "greater good." This is collectivist jargon used to bamboozle people from their original and accurate understanding.

Well you just answered the question. You think we should not have fought in WW2. I differ, but I respect your point of view.

This is of course the great story of the American statist religion. Should the American government have given escaping Jews back to Stalin? How did Hitler rise to power? How was Germany is such dire straits to turn to such a nationalist monster? Treaty of Versailles maybe? WWI perhaps? A war started by monarchs (related monarchs) and blood-thirsty, self-important leaders who drafted millions to die in a war for nothing.

Hitler would have won, then. I wonder what the world would be like now, if we hadn't fought. We'll never know, but I guess it would be worse.

This is my pragmatic assessment. Pragmatism sometimes clashes with other ideals.

A bit off topic But I wonder what the world would be if they would have killed the man on the right, right there on the spot. But somehow the "leaders" never kill other "leaders". Really strange, not pragmatic at all of those "leaders"

churchill-roosevelt-stalin-at-Yalta.jpg

source

There is a cost to dishonor. I don't think it's clear that the expediency of killing one leader outweighs the cost.

It might be the case that the one leader you kill is succeed by a worse foe.

so, america shouldn't have fought the Nazis, then?

so, america shouldn't have fought the Nazis, then?

Look: Literal parroting bots proving my point. Nuance is dead.

Look: Literal parroting bots proving my point. Nuance is dead.
teehee

so, America shouldn't have fought the Nazis, then?

Most people want peace but nobody is patient enough to hear the other side speak their peace. Love this video, so poignant and wise.

It's so important to listen. I agree. Thanks for this.