NationStates Jolt Archive

I started reading Gandhi, I didn't have por...I mean newspapers, and I want to know somthing. How do you refute Gandhi? He's a clever little man, but I don't want to give up my life and live in peace because I'm not a pacifist, but I can't really find any clear ways to refute his philosophy of peace and social engineering. :(

Easy, you are human.

I like when someone asked him; "What do you think of western civilization?" and he answered, "I think it's a wonderful idea."

:D

I like when someone asked him; "What do you think of western civilization?" and he answered, "I think it's a wonderful idea."

:D
You see that's all part of his plot to create a world of his vision.

He was shot, wasn't he? So, in certain a way, he already got refuted.

I started reading Gandhi, I didn't have por...I mean newspapers, and I want to know somthing. How do you refute Gandhi?

I have found that ad hominem attacks based on his predeliction for drinking his own urine and for sleeping between a pair of young virgins are remarkably effective rebuttals to his entire philosophical worldview.

He was shot, wasn't he? So, in certain a way, he already got refuted.
But his ideas live on.

Don't you ignore me! I have a very legitimate argument against him that humans inheritantly despise peace!

Don't you ignore me! I have a very legitimate argument against him that humans inheritantly despise peace!
Not if you use his grand master plan for a peaceful society through mass poverty. [/sarcasm]

I have found that ad hominem attacks based on his predeliction for drinking his own urine and for sleeping between a pair of young virgins are remarkably effective rebuttals to his entire philosophical worldview.

Well if the virgins were still that way in the morning it's not too bad.

But his ideas live on.

Where?

Where?
Uh...in GoodThoughts or some strange commune somewhere and in the hearts and minds of every child.

Where?
Canada. Damn Canada...

Canada. Damn Canada...

Nothing we couldn't deal with. :D

How do you refute Gandhi? He's a clever little man, but I don't want to give up my life and live in peace because I'm not a pacifist, but I can't really find any clear ways to refute his philosophy of peace and social engineering. :(


I think more people should deal with his philosophies.

Are they part of your curriculae, whereever you all went to school?

Well if the virgins were still that way in the morning it's not too bad.

No, they remained unsoiled - that is what makes it such a devastating critique.

I think more people should deal with his philosophies.

Are they part of your curriculae, whereever you all went to school?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451990

Pastiche n. - A dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists, often with satirical intent.

I think more people should deal with his philosophies.

Are they part of your curriculae, whereever you all went to school?
No, no, I just want to refute them so I can save myself from a terrible peace filled with poverty and sea salt.

No, no, I just want to refute them so I can save myself from a terrible peace filled with poverty and sea salt.


If we were all to embrace Gandhi's ideology and beat our swords into ploughshares, then the workload on poor old Ben Kingsley as he tried to appear in every one of our biopics would probably kill the man.

If we were all to embrace Gandhi's ideology and beat our swords into ploughshares, then the workload on poor old Ben Kingsley as he tried to appear in every one of our biopics would probably kill the man.
He might live.

I started reading Gandhi, I didn't have por...I mean newspapers, and I want to know somthing. How do you refute Gandhi? He's a clever little man, but I don't want to give up my life and live in peace because I'm not a pacifist, but I can't really find any clear ways to refute his philosophy of peace and social engineering. :(
i know what you mean. the man was right, but i'm too lazy to abide by what he says.
it used to drive me nuts, now i just accept that i'm a bog-standard, flawed human, and i could never hope to live up to someone as great as him (hmm, mild kiss-assery there, but you get the picture)

He might live.

Yeah, but we would probably be forced into using violence against him in order to make him stick to his last.

Refuting the Mahatma is remarkably easy. You merely need to point out the fact that some governments DON'T have to take public pressure into account.

The current government of Burma is a good example; Aun Song Suu Kyi (sp?) would be running the place if the government actually gave a damn what the people thought. Or Nigeria; Ken Saro Wewa was a pacifist, and they hanged him.

Gandhi's tactics worked because, on some level, the British Raj actually cared about the people and well being of India. Remove that care, and the tactic falls apart.

Obvious question; why the heck would you even want to refute Gandhi? Non-violent civil disobedience in favour of the oppressed and condemnation of those who practice religiousity for its own sake? Unless you're a British Nationalist,, a gun-toting maniac, a repressive dictator or a complete religious bigot and proud of that fact, it's hard to see where he could possibly upset you.

Oh, wait, this is NationStates. Chances are that's about a quarter of you. Never mind then. ^^;

Refuting the Mahatma is remarkably easy. You merely need to point out the fact that some governments DON'T have to take public pressure into account.

The current government of Burma is a good example; Aun Song Suu Kyi (sp?) would be running the place if the government actually gave a damn what the people thought. Or Nigeria; Ken Saro Wewa was a pacifist, and they hanged him.

Gandhi's tactics worked because, on some level, the British Raj actually cared about the people and well being of India. Remove that care, and the tactic falls apart.
then you could argue his tactics work against any legitimate form of government.

but of course that depends on your personal definition of what makes a government legitimate... which is subjective

though for a government to protect its people - arguably and commonly the #1 role of legit govt - it must intrinsically care about them.


of course the real requisites of legitimate government aren't as simple as that, but there you go


anyway, this is more gandhi's tactics (satyagraha (omg i just spelt that from memory :eek: )), not his moral philosophies

Are they part of your curriculae, whereever you all went to school?

If you're going to try to act all smart with your latin plurals, you could at least get the right one.

Obvious question; why the heck would you even want to refute Gandhi?


If we are unable to refute Gandhi then we must conclude that the world is locked into a state of collective madness where it makes sense to piss away billions of pounds and manhours on absolutely unnecessary armed forces and militaries. To be unable to refute Gandhi is to acknowledge that all governments across the globe are staffed by blundering and callous nincompoops who care more about their holiday villas and stock portfolios than actually helping people. If we are unable to refute Gandhi then we find that the prevalent ideology - might is right - which separates the rich from the poor is nothing but an atavistic shadow that has hung around since our time as primitive simians.


To make any kind of sense of the way which planet Earth is run it is vital that we refute Gandhi - if he is correct then we are faced with acknowledging that all around us is madness.

If you're going to try to act all smart with your latin plurals, you could at least get the right one.

That would have been a five-star post if you had managed to cram the word 'criterion' in there somehow.

-Snip-
Exactly my point. The man was spot on. Wasting time trying to refute it is counterproductive; you'd be better off trying to fix it.

too many people see the indian wars of independance as gandhi vs. the british and that's simply not true. the british wanted to leave at that point (despite churchill's blustering) and many of india's leaders saw gandhi as a christian in west hating clothing. tagore and nehru have some of my favorite essays on why gandhi is wrong for india. if you look at india as a modern state almost none of gandhi's reforms went into effect (thank god, since modernization is doing wonders for the region.)

Exactly my point. The man was spot on. Wasting time trying to refute it is counterproductive; you'd be better off trying to fix it.

Your irony detector seems to be on the blink. Not even a twitch on that little needle?

Mohandas Gandhi kicks ass!

Mohandas Gandhi kicks ass!
rofl @ wc.

Gandhi's tactics worked because, on some level, the British Raj actually cared about the people and well being of India. Remove that care, and the tactic falls apart.

Nah.

Gandhi undermined moral ground of the imperial British Raj. The Raj prided itself on such stuff..like bringing civilisation to the wild-eyed heathens..the whole "white man's burden" stuff.

Everyone likes to think that they are morally better than the other. Undermining it and exposing it to others is actually a very powerful weapon. You cannot beat unarmed peaceful protesters and still claim moral authority.

That is why Gandhi's tactics worked. The British Raj's care was only in looting India and making India an agro colony and a dumping ground of mass manufactured goods.

The tactics would always work (except in regimes like Timur Lane's or Chengiz Khan's etc).

If the Palestinians would have followed such tactics they would be a lot closer to an independant homeland than by blowing up Israeli civilians.

Oh and Pure Metal gets a cookie for correctly spelling Satyagraha.:)

Refute Ghandi?
He was pretty good in Schindlers List.
Didn't like him as much in Sexy Beast though.

Refute Ghandi?
He was pretty good in Schindlers List.
Didn't like him as much in Sexy Beast though.
Now you're just being insulting.

I don't think you understand. If you fail to refute Gandhi, you don't lose much. If I fail to refute Nietzsche, I cannot even live, let alone be happy in any sense. I don't even have any ethical code left because it was all ground away. I'm trying to refute him so that I can not only back my ethics on something but justify my own existance.

I don't think you understand. If you fail to refute Gandhi, you don't lose much. If I fail to refute Nietzsche, I cannot even live, let alone be happy in any sense. I don't even have any ethical code left because it was all ground away. I'm trying to refute him so that I can not only back my ethics on something but justify my own existance.
No, no, sonny Jim, the third reason I made this thread was to show you that you keep ignoring what people say. You take his philosophy on face value. If you want to not be weak, then be strong. Gain confidence, follow your own thoughts and don't let others control you. That's strength.

I think more people should deal with his philosophies.

Are they part of your curriculae, whereever you all went to school?

One word, No.

I don't think you understand. If you fail to refute Gandhi, you don't lose much. If I fail to refute Nietzsche, I cannot even live, let alone be happy in any sense. I don't even have any ethical code left because it was all ground away. I'm trying to refute him so that I can not only back my ethics on something but justify my own existance.
Well, as has been pointed out to you, you are completely misinterpreting Nietzsche. His ubermensch is not what you think it is.

Well, as has been pointed out to you, you are completely misinterpreting Nietzsche. His ubermensch is not what you think it is.

Then what is it? Why did he go through all the trouble of disguising what he really meant with misleading language?

Then what is it? Why did he go through all the trouble of disguising what he really meant with misleading language?
Well, he was a writer for one. Why don't all writers just come out and say what they really mean? It's not as interesting then.

Well, he was a writer for one. Why don't all writers just come out and say what they really mean? It's not as interesting then.

But what's the point of philosophizing one thing and then writing down another? Wouldn't he want people to know what he was talking about so that his ideas would be more readily accepted? He would be shooting himself in the foot by deliberately making himself ambiguous and thus unappealing.

Your irony detector seems to be on the blink. Not even a twitch on that little needle?
I'd assumed you were being bitterly sarcastic. Hence why I agreed with a healthy dose of pessimistic human-bashing. Though yeah, my Irony detector is a little rusty. Too many religion topics. ><;

Then what is it? Why did he go through all the trouble of disguising what he really meant with misleading language?
Read Also Sprach Zarathustra. It's quite clear in there.

I don't think you understand. If you fail to refute Gandhi, you don't lose much. If I fail to refute Nietzsche, I cannot even live, let alone be happy in any sense. I don't even have any ethical code left because it was all ground away. I'm trying to refute him so that I can not only back my ethics on something but justify my own existance.

I am curious. Why aren't you more concerned with refuting Hitler? He definitely said you should die; unlike Nietzsche where it is arugably not the case. Shouldn't you, then, worry more about the logical underpinnings of Hitlerism first?

He was shot, wasn't he? So, in certain a way, he already got refuted.

Accurate, up to a point. He had already accomplished most of what he set out to do.

In reality, conflict is a matter of will. Whoever has the greater will to do whatever must be done wins.

Gandhi showed that when dealing with a Western nation, like the UK, if you are willing to suffer a bit, the Western nation will not have the will to stop you. Shaming a Western nation is possible.

It would not work on conquerors of the past - he, and all of his followers, would simply have been massacred for resisting. Conquerors of the past had something that Western nations generally do not have anymore - the willingness to commit any atrocity on any scale necessary to either completely eliminate a population, or to commit atrocities on a scale necessary to completely frighten a population into cooperation.

Nazi Germany was probably the last Western nation willing to do anything on any scale - shovel people into ovens, mass executions on an industrial scale, wiping out whole towns for perceived acts of resistance (Oradour sur Glaine) - all on the basis of extremely detailed orders and plans.

Not even the actions of the US in the GWOT come close to the scale or willingness.

On the face of it, Muslims would probably win more often against Western interests if they had a Gandhi of their own. But, as long as they are willing to raise rifles and explosives and commit atrocities of their own, it's harder for them to shame the West.

I am curious. Why aren't you more concerned with refuting Hitler? He definitely said you should die; unlike Nietzsche where it is arugably not the case. Shouldn't you, then, worry more about the logical underpinnings of Hitlerism first?

If I managed to refute Nietzsche, I would also manage to refute anyone who says they are justified in killing the "weak and failures" including Hitler.

Interestingly, I'm reading that he not only denied moral truth but truth in general as anything other than a social construct. That might be his weakness, reliance on this sort of relativism. At the very least, I think I see a possible way to refute his support of aristocracy.

He declares that all morality is just fiction, yet he clearly supports the strong, even if the weak manage to overthrow the strong and hence show the strong to not be so. He decries equality while simutaneously trying to avoid any objective moral standards.

Incidently, this page is a good start on backing up my criticisms on Nietzsche:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/articles/linker.html

If I managed to refute Nietzsche, I would also manage to refute anyone who says they are justified in killing the "weak and failures" including Hitler.


That is absolutely not true. By refuting Nietzsche, all you will have accomplished is to refute Nietzsche.

Many people have suggested that the "weak and failures" should be killed. Most of them owe nothing to the ideas of Nietzsche, and their ideas are capable of standing alone on their own merits.

I as understand the works of Hitler, they, too, can be read without any reference to the philosophy of Nietzsche - indeed there is some evidence that Nietzsche would have rejected Hitlerism and its underlying philosophy. Therefore, it is illogical (and irrational) to suggest that refuting Nietzsche will somehow validate your existence in toto.

If I managed to refute Nietzsche, I would also manage to refute anyone who says they are justified in killing the "weak and failures" including Hitler.

Not at all. If you were to claim to have photographs of UFOs and I were to refute you, showing that they were cunningly constructed fakes made with hubcaps and bits of string, would that refute everyone who says they also have photographic evidence of UFOs?

I as understand the works of Hitler, they, too, can be read without any reference to the philosophy of Nietzsche - indeed there is some evidence that Nietzsche would have rejected Hitlerism and its underlying philosophy. Therefore, it is illogical (and irrational) to suggest that refuting Nietzsche will somehow validate your existence in toto.

More to the point, there is no evidence that Hitler ever read a word of Nietzsche other than that which was plastered on the walls when he visited the Nietzsche museum run by (that evil fucking bitch) Elizabeth Forster.

Neo K, you may be interested to find out that Ghandi's own son was given The World's Smallest Political Quiz, and asked to give the answers he was sure his father would've given, Ghandi scored as a hard-core libertarian.

Then what is it? Why did he go through all the trouble of disguising what he really meant with misleading language?

What? German?

Neo K, you may be interested to find out that Ghandi's own son was given The World's Smallest Political Quiz, and asked to give the answers he was sure his father would've given, Ghandi scored as a hard-core libertarian.
Libertarian in the way it is used in the U.S., or libertarian as it's used in the rest of world, also known as correctly?

Libertarian in the way it is used in the U.S., or libertarian as it's used in the rest of world, also known as correctly?
Libertarian as in Individualist vs. Statist. Can't clarify much more than that.

BTW, I converse regularly with many libertarians from many countries here (check out our region, also called Libertarian), and we all agree on what "libertarian" means.

So I have no idea WTF you're talking about.

Libertarian as in Individualist vs. Statist. Can't clarify much more than that.


An anti-statist need not necessarily be an individualist, and a statist need not necessarily be a collectivist.


BTW, I converse regularly with many libertarians from many countries here (check out our region, also called Libertarian), and we all agree on what "libertarian" means.

So I have no idea WTF you're talking about.

Well, there's libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29), libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarian), libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian), and libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).

BTW, I converse regularly with many libertarians from many countries here (check out our region, also called Libertarian), and we all agree on what "libertarian" means.

So I have no idea WTF you're talking about.
I am referring to how "libertarian" was originally synonymous with "anarcho-communist" until the word was hijacked by what used to be called "liberals". (They're now known as "classic liberals", as you know.)

An anti-statist need not necessarily be an individualist, and a statist need not necessarily be a collectivist.



Well, there's libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29), libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarian), libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian), and libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).
You need to read up on who pWnD the term "libertarian", and in what country. Read up and find out why the term can only be bastardized and coopted by another group in order to siphon a bit of recognition and publicity.

You may be suprised at what you find.

I am referring to how "libertarian" was originally synonymous with "anarcho-communist" until the word was hijacked by what used to be called "liberals". (They're now known as "classic liberals", as you know.)
I'm familiar with the term Classic Liberal, as you may know. ;)

But I think you need to provide some evidence (very convincing evidence) on the origin of the word libertarian in order to convince me of its origins, because my understanding differs from yous (obviously).
Actually, I'd appreciate the passing on of something that important for future reference. I don't want to be unclear on that.

You need to read up on who pWnD the term "libertarian", and in what country. Read up and find out why the term can only be bastardized and coopted by another group in order to siphon a bit of recognition and publicity.

You may be suprised at what you find.

"The term's political meaning is a result of some French anarchists adopting libertaire as an alternative term for their ideas after the French government banned anarchism. It was first used in print in 1857 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to individualist-anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon from New Orleans criticizing him for supporting private property in the product of labor and exchange markets. Dejacque also published a periodical in New York called "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian) from 1858 to 1861.[2] The English term "libertarian" was used in the 19th century and early 20th century in America to refer to one who espoused that country's native form of individualist anarchism --a type of anarchism that opposed communist and syndicalist anarchism, and supported private property and a market economy. But, for the most part, English-speaking anarchists choose to call themselves anarchists, individualist anarchists, anarchist-communists, or anarchist-syndicalists. Often, when distinguishing between the different uses of the term, the word libertarian is qualified as in "left-libertarian" or "right-libertarian" to distinguish between collectivist and individualist forms, respectively."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#Terminology

Sorry, the leftists have a long history of using the term, well before 1970 and the founding of the American Libertarian Party. But then, who "pWnD" the term first is completely irrevelant. Whether any of us likes it, it is a simple matter of fact that many different ideologies all choose to use the word "libertarian" to describe themselves.

"The term's political meaning is a result of some French anarchists adopting libertaire as an alternative term for their ideas after the French government banned anarchism. It was first used in print in 1857 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to individualist-anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon from New Orleans criticizing him for supporting private property in the product of labor and exchange markets. Dejacque also published a periodical in New York called "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian) from 1858 to 1861.[2] The English term "libertarian" was used in the 19th century and early 20th century in America to refer to one who espoused that country's native form of individualist anarchism --a type of anarchism that opposed communist and syndicalist anarchism, and supported private property and a market economy. But, for the most part, English-speaking anarchists choose to call themselves anarchists, individualist anarchists, anarchist-communists, or anarchist-syndicalists. Often, when distinguishing between the different uses of the term, the word libertarian is qualified as in "left-libertarian" or "right-libertarian" to distinguish between collectivist and individualist forms, respectively."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#Terminology

Sorry, the leftists had it first. But then, who "pWnD" the term first is completely irrevelant. Whether any of us likes it, it is a simple matter of fact that many different ideologies all choose to use the word "libertarian" to describe themselves.

I'm afraid that being an English-speaking guy, that doesn't cut it. It's not the same term at all.

We still call croissants by name, but have many words the English language PwNs because those are ROOT words. In fact, our language is built on it.
If that were true, other countries would have Libertaires, not libertarians.

EDIT: In fact, I'm going to forever insist that guys like Kanabia call themselves Libertaires (usually hyphenated), and not accept sloppy seconds from our use. We've taken enough from so-called liberals who've successfully coopted the term.

I'm afraid that being an English-speaking guy, that doesn't cut it. It's not the same term at all.

We still call croissants by name, but have many words the English language PwNs because those are ROOT words. In fact, our language is built on it.
If that were true, other countries would have Libertaires, not libertarians.

EDIT: In fact, I'm going to forever insist that guys like Kanabia call themselves Libertaires (usually hyphenated), and not accept sloppy seconds from our use. We've taken enough from so-called liberals who've successfully coopted the term.

Insistence is futile. In politics, as with any religion, we will always have various factions claiming that they are the "true" whatever. This is the thing about words and languages: they are co-opted, changed, altered, and manipulated. Open up and dictionary, flip through the pages, and note how many words have "archaic" definitions underneath the current chic one. One hundred years ago, a "libertarian" was a leftist, today many consider "libertarian" right-wing, tomorrow a "libertarian" will be whatever new political philosophy someone decides to conjure one morning.

At any rate, I tend to think that the rabid focus on labeling is often aimed only at covering up a vacuous belief system. Spare me the clever marketing and just tell me what one believes. :)

Insistence is futile. In politics, as with any religion, we will always have various factions claiming that they are the "true" whatever. This is the thing about words and languages: they are co-opted, changed, altered, and manipulated. Open up and dictionary, flip through the pages, and note how many words have "archaic" definitions underneath the current chic one. One hundred years ago, a "libertarian" was a leftist, today many consider "libertarian" right-wing, tomorrow a "libertarian" will be whatever new political philosophy someone decides to conjure one morning.

At any rate, I tend to think that the rabid focus on labeling is often aimed only at covering up a vacuous belief system. Spare me the clever marketing and just tell me what one believes. :)
Sir, I can't in good conscience do anything but concede that you're completely right (in every conceivable way) on this.
In fact, if we were allowed to use paragraphs this long, I'd turn it into a siggy.

Labels blow donkey nuts. Whether sexually, politically, psychologically or otherwise, it's the same label with different marketing.

Sir, I can't in good conscience do anything but concede that you're completely right (in every conceivable way) on this.
In fact, if we were allowed to use paragraphs this long, I'd turn it into a siggy.

Labels blow donkey nuts. Whether sexually, politically, psychologically or otherwise, it's the same label with different marketing.

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name."
-- Tao Te Ching: A New English Version by Stephen Mitchell

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name."
-- Tao Te Ching: A New English Version by Stephen Mitchell
Ahhhh, I like you. As a Buddhist, that makes complete sense to me in terms of zeitgeist politics. You're no Grasshopper, teacher. ;)

I started reading Gandhi, I didn't have por...I mean newspapers, and I want to know somthing. How do you refute Gandhi? He's a clever little man, but I don't want to give up my life and live in peace because I'm not a pacifist, but I can't really find any clear ways to refute his philosophy of peace and social engineering. :(
Check out the essay "Reflections on Gandhi" by George Orwell.

In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: "What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?" I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the "you're another" type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer's Gandhi and Stalin. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.

Also check out the other part of the essay, about "non-attachment" and undesirability of love and friendship in Gandhi's view.

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/ghandi.html

Another few quotes I found on the "Iconochasms" site of the politicalcompass.org

Who blocked the marriage of his son and disowned him, commenting "How can I, who has always advocated renunciation of sex, encourage you to gratify it?"
Mahatma Gandhi, dealing with his son Harilal.

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."
Mahatma Gandhi, May 1940

Continuing on Womble's theme:
"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
Mahatma Gandhi, on absolute non-violence, speaking to biographer Louis Fisher in June 1946.

you guys give waaayy to much credit to gandhi for "toppling" the raj. england was bankrupt after wwii and couldn't afford to hold onto india. they created the indian national congress not in response to gandhi but in response to their situation at home.

as for why nietzsche would disguise his philosophy from a few pages back: nietzsche felt that all "facts" were subjective. anything that could be expressed must borrow from an abstract concept. therefore i couldn't say "i hold in my hand a red book" without calling on "bookness" "redness" and a multitude of other formalisms. the problem is reality (according to nietzsche) doesn't function according to abstractions or categorically but rather through a creative "will". therefore how do you write a book destroying these abstractions without in turn building them yourself? you must lead the reader there. that's why he must be so obscure. when he writes the reader knows he's doing so with a wink and a nod. i don't think nietzsche would say all power is a construct, it's just one of it's faces. for example: jesus has such a powerful prescence to the weak because he says to them "you are strong because you are weak." the slave defines himself by his master ie the stronger. the romans were just as bad by defining themselves by "the other". they crucufied others to better define their abstract roman-ness. the ubermensch is self created. literally drawn up out of his own will. if you want to read nietzsche i wouldn't recommend zarathustra. he's not a very good poet. beyond good and evil and geneology of morals are his best.

Gandhi just stole Parihaka's Glory that is all.

Gandhi was unwilling to collaborate with blacks and the black independence movements in Africa.

I have to agree with the others on libertarian. We co-opted it after the socialists co-opted liberal. I don't use either because I rather use a term that's mutally confusing.