|
|||||||||||||
|
By Punkerslut
When people believe that they must solve their problems with the direct use of force and violence, it will show as a great sign of the failure of civilization. Do sophisticated men solve their quarrels with the use of violence? When scientists are presenting a new theory or hypothesis, would they ever feel the need to use physical force, or would they bring evidence? A good theory will not be in need of violence, just as much as good men will do as much as they can to solve their problems peacefully. I believe in Pacifism, and by this, I believe that whenever violence arises, the beautify in humanity decreases, the flower of reverence wilts, and a storm just begins to foment on the horizon of the future. My opposition to violence, to the use of physical brutality as a method to reach a conclusion, is based on my humane philosophy, and my love of every conscious being. For every organism that is alive in this Universe and lives every day with as much fear as they do hope -- who adores those tender memories of intimacy, and writhes and cries at those traumatic events that shifted their reality into a nightmare -- for every being that can suffer and every being who mourns such suffering, there is another reason to believe in Pacifism; to believe in the way of peace, in that it is an ultimate goal of our humane sentiments. For every experience that is touched with the pain of violence, there is another mournful tear in the eye of compassion -- another lie spoken by truth. In this world of ours, where war and famine are consequential results of a Capitalist economy, where a man's opinion is enough for the government to curse them, where the most respected of the population are revered for their devotion to an unseen being -- when everyday is another spectacle at how much a joke our civilization is, at pursuits that create nothing and share no inspiration, at every person's fear to say and be what they think -- to see the regrets of those who are now war veterans, to feel the trembling pains of those who never sought a lover -- when everyday is just another struggle to be honest and sincere, the only wish I can cast upon the fading star of our future is that more will appeal to the position of Pacifism, and more will adhere to those non-violent solutions. When it comes to a fight, a physical fight, it is little more than an expression of aggression, but the bruises will always run deep down to the soul. Humiliation and Depression may infect the mind, just as scars and debility will destroy the body. There is not a just court in this world who would accept a fight as a proper method to reach a verdict. Those verdicts which are guided by the principles of justice and fairness, they are not based on the fighting ability of either the defendant or the plaintiff, but rather by the evidence presented by both sides. It was a blessed day when Dueling grew old and tiresome, and garnered no respect from those who valued civilization and truth. The idea that a quarrel, a dilemma, an argument, can be settled with the use of brute force -- this idea is simple a demonstration of grave ignorance, at the cost of intelligence and truth. When we see two individuals fighting each other, for the sake of some trifle or another, little more than disdain can be used to express our opinion on the matter, as fighting will solve nothing. When two scientists are arguing against each other, both of them upholding their own method as being a better way, evidence will be the determining factor in which one we decide to believe. In matters of intellectual investigation, of confirming or debunking, when it matters because it's what we believe -- brute violence, the use of coercion, has never been loyal to the spirit of truth, has never offered assistance to the methods of reason. "Be with me now," a lover will say to the person who gives light to life. Never are these words more sincere than at the conclusion of some conflict, at the end of some arduous fighting, intolerance, cruelty, and viciousness. To engage in fighting, in a contest of physical strength, it will not solve problems. To those who are so willing to do so, they may find that for years they will be haunted by the screams of their downed victims, by the tears of widows and orphans. Mercilessness among every vice -- when a child cries, only those hands that belong to a humane person will reach. For a man to be robbed, to walk down the same street he has every day of his life, and to have his property taken away from him -- the man will have lost more than a physical item. His heart will be wrought with the pains of the depth of cruelty in men. It may be a thing to lose an item one day, no matter how cherished or dear that item is. But when someone destroys your reasons to believe in charity, your motives to understand the emotions of the hearts of others -- when something is capable of rendering such a brutish, terrible effect, it is more than just the loss of a physical item. So, too, when a man is struck or attacked, he will feel more than just the pain from the blows, but an unending confusion and depression, mostly centering around the question, "How could they do that?" And it will be meant that it is hard to believe that a person could reach such cruel depths. I will not pretend that I can accurately express how horrible a man feels when they are wronged -- such emotions are beyond the possibilities of our humble language. But, hopefully, I have been able to demonstrate to some degree what it means. Ultimately, when fighting and conflict rise from beyond the domestic crises, it will manifest itself in war -- but much more than just that. For every bomb dropped, it is another sign of lost hope. For every soldier bayoneted, every village burned, every dissent of opinion suppressed -- when we look at every sign of war, we are reminded a little less of why we believe in the bloom of humaneness. War has never brought peace, it has never brought Democracy, it has never brought economic stability. Those incidents of revolution may in some cases be the exception to this. But the rise of the Western World's dominance in global affairs, of such a small amount of countries making up the policies and regulations for such a great amount of nations, it has only followed a great deal of Imperialism and war. In every nation that has felt the grueling whip of the overseer, there has been the crater of war, the empty bowl of famine, the slums of poverty. In these conditions, nations will struggle to survive, as all meaning of a true Democracy are removed by foreign investors. And so, we have the image of war: sacrificing the lives of our children, for the sake of economic prosperity. Yet, it is not economic prosperity in that all involved benefit, but it is rather economic slavery, in that one is forced into cooperation at no benefit, whereas the other receives the profit of the other. As soldiers march off to battle an enemy their leaders have told them was a source of all infamy, there will be one less reason to think that civilization will be achieved. Of all inventions, of cultures which have made the human species sing praise and of those thinkers that men attribute genius to, of all creations, there are fewer that have more merits than that of Diplomacy. Through the use of this wonderful creation, we can try to settle our differences not through the sword of war, but through the quill of reason -- not in spite of compassion, but at the aid of reverence. Leaders may be reviled as those who are either dictators or representatives, and the difference between the two possibilities is rather insignificant, but there was one tool that leaders had at their disposal which gave civilization a brilliant light to its shine. That tool was Diplomacy. The first day that a person used reason instead of force to conclude an argument was the first day that civilization had a true realization. Not just in the structures, or the artwork, or the productivity, or those fickle matters that historians toil over when it comes to culture. But in the hearts of men and women, there is a real understanding of civilization, when they lean towards solution which are most peaceful, and offer the greatest praise when violence can be averted. I will give Diplomacy this very merited distinction among other creations. Unlike the factories that produce more bombs than we have earth -- more bullets than we have people -- Diplomacy was a creation that was not brought about for use against or for justice, against or for liberty, but rather, as a conflict-resolving, peaceful method. Violence is violence, and it is a form of brutality that will never be acceptable in the heart of the Humanitarian -- it will always be reviled as ignorant as much as it is merciless. There are, though, a very few amount of cases where violence can be condoned, but in these instances, the definition of "violence" and "force" are almost altered entirely. When a man is attacked, this is violence, but when he fights back, it is equally violence -- but in the case of fighting back, it is justified, it is a sign of strength and duty. There is no way that I could still adhere to the foundations of Reason and Logic, and still not defend a person's right to self defense. Aside from this right, there is one other instance where force and coercion can be allowed. In those instances where an injustice has been committed, and recompense must be paid, it is allowable. An example of this would be our modern corporations: they pay poorly and they sell at high prices. In the end, the business world gathers wealth whereas the poor struggle to survive. In this world, where Capitalism reigns and the downtrodden must suffer, to shoplift from a store is but an act of revolution -- it is justifiable in that corporations are thieves themselves. In a very real way, shoplifting is more of repossession and not theft. When companies force 12 year old children to sew soccer balls for 10 cents an hour, this is a crime. When a street punk steals food to feed himself, this is not a crime. And it is interesting to recognize that the law recognizes the first as not a crime and the first as a crime. The government does not exist to serve the will of the people. But in the instance where a person is defending themselves or their rights or justice, physical force is justified, but in those instances where people are trying to solve a simple dilemma, it is not justified. This is my position on the matter of Pacifism and Peace as a Humanitarian. Punkerslut,
|
