NationStates Jolt Archive

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …"
-George Orwell
Notes on Nationalism in May 1945

Discuss amongst yourselves.

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …"
-George Orwell
Notes on Nationalism in May 1945

Discuss amongst yourselves.
No?

well if Orwell said it, its gotta be true!

I would have expected more enlightened attitudes toward violence from him, but oh well. I think he misunderstands pacifism. I oppose all violence, whether from western "democracies", totalitarianism, or serial killers. If Orwell wants to support taking lives, that's his choice, but I'd prefer if he didn't misrepresent pacifism to make killing people look like a good option.

No?

Are you not sure whether or not you want to discuss it?

Groups of pacifism: According to George Orwell-
1)The pacifist are religious and gave a vow of not wanting to harm others.

2) Humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point.

3) Intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism.

I've never heard or recall any of number 3 but then again I'm somewhere close to number 1 but not there. And I'm not I'm a humanitarian.

I would have expected more enlightened attitudes toward violence from him, but oh well. I think he misunderstands pacifism. I oppose all violence, whether from western "democracies", totalitarianism, or serial killers. If Orwell wants to support taking lives, that's his choice, but I'd prefer if he didn't misrepresent pacifism to make killing people look like a good option.

I don't think he supports killing people, he just recognizes that often, as in the 1940's, pacifism doesn't save lives.

I don't think he supports killing people, he just recognizes that often, as in the 1940's, pacifism doesn't save lives.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it war that killed people in the 40s?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it war that killed people in the 40s?
Old age kills too :)

Pacifism always seemed selfish to me, a place to hide for people who just don't want to get involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it war that killed people in the 40s?
Well, technically if Britian and France would have jumped into the war quicker (1936 off of the top of my head), Hitler would have been caught unprepaired for war (no Panzers, no Blitzkrieg) and defeated faster then in 1939, and he wouldn't have had time for the final solution (or at least the extent of it).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it war that killed people in the 40s?
People did get killed IN the war, yes, so isn't it great that a few nations decided to team up and end it? Or do you believe that surrendering to Hitler would have saved more lives in the end?

I would have expected more enlightened attitudes toward violence from him, but oh well. I think he misunderstands pacifism. I oppose all violence, whether from western "democracies", totalitarianism, or serial killers. If Orwell wants to support taking lives, that's his choice, but I'd prefer if he didn't misrepresent pacifism to make killing people look like a good option.

To be honest, I don't think he misrepresents pacifism at all. You, in my experience, are a minority among pacifists in your views, Letila. Most people who call themselves pacifists that I know or hear about seem exclusively to reserve their attacks on American hegemony, not on 3rd-world genocide. I don't like institutions like the World Bank any more than they do, but frankly I think they have yet to get their priorities straight if they think that America using it's power to try to better the lives of people elsewhere is automatically worse than some dictator using the population for his own live-action snuff reality show.

To be honest, I don't think he misrepresents pacifism at all. You, in my experience, are a minority among pacifists in your views, Letila. Most people who call themselves pacifists that I know or hear about seem exclusively to reserve their attacks on American hegemony, not on 3rd-world genocide. I don't like institutions like the World Bank any more than they do, but frankly I think they have yet to get their priorities straight if they think that America using it's power to try to better the lives of people elsewhere is automatically worse than some dictator using the population for his own live-action snuff reality show.

Yes and the funny thing is, Orwell wrote that in 1945, how little things change.

It seems that there is some hidden facet in human nature, not always realized, that is willing to turn a blind eye to the suffering caused by certain dictators who will remain unnamed because, in the act of stopping them, someone could get hurt.

It seems that there is some hidden facet in human nature, not always realized, that is willing to turn a blind eye to the suffering caused by certain dictators who will remain unnamed because, in the act of stopping them, someone could get hurt.

You seem to forget that the dictator is also guilty of violence. Also, do you really believe that the government goes to war to help people in third world countries? No, it regularly allows them to suffer in sweatshops. It doesn't care about them at all. It just wants power.

War has solved many more problems than words.

War has solved many more problems than words.

You don't have to build a shrine to Vash the Stampede, but you could at least cut back a little on your support of slaughter.

You don't have to build a shrine to Vash the Stampede, but you could at least cut back a little on your support of slaughter.

Who is Vash the Stampede.

Who is Vash the Stampede.
Impaler?

Impaler?

No thats Vlad the Impaler(aka Dracula)

No thats Vlad the Impaler(aka Dracula)
Guessing that's who she means.

we should learn from the past and some things should not be repeated. however the 'incited hate because of will to power' has always been present and just as Orwell described in his 'Animal farm' revolutions and war only lead to rotation and reorganisation of those in charge. some die some don't but the mass is always enslaved. That's what it's there for. the gene pool.

now to support past happenings or not that's non-debateable coz it happened nothing you can do to change it. if it's reasonable to avoid it and one wouldn't like that it happenend to oneself then it's wrong to do :)

and pacifism is like communism - it doesn't work unless all agree to be a part of it unquestionably. if 90% of us agree to be pacifists - to handle issues with words and in abcence of agression then the 10% will surely take up on guns and iron pipes and by beating the hell out of the mayority install their views in the mass. so it's either all or none...

Who is Vash the Stampede.

From Trigun! You don't have to watch Eva, I, embarrasingly enough, haven't, but as to how someone can not be familiar with Vash the stampede, I really don't know.

Violence should only be used as a last resort. There aren't many examples of violence being used where it was a last resort.

Violence should only be used as a last resort.
Could you elaborate? Last resort in doing what?

In that case I must be a humanitarian pacifist because I do believe there is no point in taking human life over petty arguments