Henry David Thoreau is the backdrop: Civil Disobedience, the application. And just like Mandela, Che is a murderer, too (a post on this blog from waaaay back in 2005).
Did he ever read it, Thoreau’s work? What does it matter? He chose to be a thug, inciting violence, organizing violence against innocents (like Obama, for instance). I’ve seen estimates as high as 20,000 for innocents killed by the UmKhonto we Sizwe arm of the African National Congress (ANC) that Mandela worked long and hard to organize in opposition to the status quo of peaceful resistance.
Did Gandhi and MLK get it all wrong?
“Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.” — Gandhi
“Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.” — Thomas Edison
King stated that he was first introduced to the concept of nonviolence when he read Henry David Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience as a freshman at Morehouse College. Having grown up in Atlanta and witnessed segregation and racism every day, King was ‘‘fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system.’’ (King, Stride Toward Freedom, 73).
So you’ll excuse me if I’m not all mournful over the death of a killer of innocent people in the interest of expediency or, to grab political rule over everyone—even if it took 27 years of prison time to get to be president.
When I make omelets, I use actual eggs, not metaphors.
There’s this, pretty decent, in the LA Times: Nelson Mandela’s legacy: As a leader, he was willing to use violence.
But unlike Gandhi, who said that nonviolence and truth were inseparable, and King, who famously declared that violence was immoral, Mandela embraced armed struggle to end the racist system of apartheid.
To many South Africans, particularly within the African National Congress, Mandela was a great man partly because of his willingness to use violence, not in spite of it.
Many believe apartheid would have endured much longer if he hadn’t rebelled and overturned the ANC’s long-standing nonviolence policy.
“Many believe.” Well there you go; but, those innocents killed along the way by Mandela and his henchmen don’t believe anything at all now, do they? And what do their children, grandchildren and descendants believe?
Mandela’s opponents said that if the ANC embarked on violence, the regime would massacre more civilians. Moses Kotane, secretary-general of the South African Communist Party, argued that continued nonviolence could work if activists were more imaginative.
Mandela met with Kotane for a full day to try to change his mind. He argued that South African activists had to consider an armed revolution because angry young men and women outside the ANC were ready to take up arms, and if the ANC did not lead them it would become irrelevant. [Shorter Mandela: ‘if we don’t lead the violence, it might get out of our control and our influence.’ –Ed]
Finally Mandela believed he had won Luthuli’s blessing to form Umkhonto we Sizwe and embark on violence. […]
At almost the most embarrassing possible moment, less than a week after Luthuli was awarded the Peace Prize in Oslo, Umkhonto we Sizwe launched its first military action: five bomb attacks on power stations and government buildings in Port Elizabeth, Durban and Johannesburg on Dec. 16, 1961.
After he founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, Mandela was sent by the ANC for military training in Algeria and Ethiopia. He held a gun for the first time. It felt comfortable in his hands. When he fired at a rock across a river, he didn’t hit it, but he got close enough to raise dust nearby, delighting his instructors.
Mandela returned from his trip in July 1962 but was arrested soon after and faced trial for sabotage in Rivonia, a Johannesburg suburb. Police found incriminating evidence about the armed struggle, and Mandela and some of the others tried with him were convicted and jailed for life in 1964. Mandela was offered freedom several times on various conditions, including renouncing violence, but he refused.
Umkhonto we Sizwe continued its fight, launching hundreds of bomb attacks.
That’s who the world is celebrating right under your feet as veritably one of the greatest, most compassionate men who ever lived…and you wonder why I harp on the fact that I live in a world of regurgitating fools.
At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists.
“Political Prisoner” my Lilly white ass.
By contrast…
After Black Power advocates such as Stokely Carmichael began to reject nonviolence, King lamented that some African Americans had lost hope, and reaffirmed his own commitment to nonviolence: ‘‘Occasionally in life one develops a conviction so precious and meaningful that he will stand on it till the end. This is what I have found in nonviolence’’ (King, Where, 63–64). He wrote in his 1967 book, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?: ‘‘We maintained the hope while transforming the hate of traditional revolutions into positive nonviolent power. As long as the hope was fulfilled there was little questioning of nonviolence. But when the hopes were blasted, when people came to see that in spite of progress their conditions were still insufferable … despair began to set in’’ (King, Where, 45). Arguing that violent revolution was impractical in the context of a multiracial society, he concluded that: ‘‘Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. The beauty of nonviolence is that in its own way and in its own time it seeks to break the chain reaction of evil’’ (King, Where, 62–63).
Ever read Letter from Birmingham Jail? I try to make it a point to read it on MLK’s birthday every year, while the world around me misses the whole point.
You may well ask, “Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that our acts are untimely. Some have asked, “Why didn’t you give the new administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this inquiry is that the new administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it acts. We will be sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Mr. Boutwell will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is much more articulate and gentle than Mr. Conner, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the task of maintaining the status quo. The hope I see in Mr. Boutwell is that he will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from the devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was “well timed” according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “wait.” It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This “wait” has almost always meant “never.” It has been a tranquilizing thalidomide, relieving the emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward the goal of political independence, and we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say “wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she cannot go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see the depressing clouds of inferiority begin to form in her little mental sky, and see her begin to distort her little personality by unconsciously developing a bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son asking in agonizing pathos, “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger” and your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and when your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never knowing what to expect next, and plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodyness” — then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
Do yourself a favor, read the whole thing, have yourself a good, soul cleansing little weeping—which always happens to me, and I’ve read it like 20 times, easy.
…And then come to the realization that Sir Dr. Martin Luther King didn’t want ANYONE killed, brutalized, unjustly jailed. Not even his moral enemies.
Nelson Mandela does not deserve this sort of recognition and it is as very simple as that. Such recognition ought be solemnly reserved for those who unequivocally do.
Wow, good post.
Richard,
Thank you.
It’s refreshing to read you words of conviction reinforcing what most folks hate to face, that reality is not vulnerable to interpretation. The sociopath(s) that thought they owned people are still referred to by the U.S.S.A. sheeple as “founding father figures”. As with Mandela, I can’t name one collectivist that hasn’t or doesn’t aspire to deserve the guillotine. I won’t raise a finger to save any of them from the fury of the mob.
May we live in interesting times.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
http://www.woodchuckpirate.com
Thank you so much for this post. I have been hating all the ululating that people around the world are doing over this evil man. Don’t forget his partner in crime, Winnie. She led to many people being murdered in a horrific way known as “necklacing”. A dose of reality is a good thing.
“I won’t raise a finger to save any of them from the fury of the mob.”
That is my ethic. I am bound to help nobody, not even a child, wife, or other family member. But I could easily risk my life for any of them because I would hate to live in a world where people don’t put their lives on the line for solemn values.
And so when the mob is riled, I have no responsibility either, and I would only lift a finger if I couldn’t bear an injustice.
The mob could tear Mandela limb from limb and I would not lift a finger to help.
You, sir, understand non-violence.
Do you condemn violent resistance in all circumstances, when the full power of the state is used by those in charge to oppress and murder select sections of society? Was violent resistance wrong in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Nazi Germany? Stalinist Russia? How about the French Resistance?
Apartheid South Africa was very much closer to the persecution of the Jews/homosexuals/communists in 1930s Germany than the US treatment of African Americans in 1950s and 1960s or British rule in India where peaceful protest had a much greater chance of changing society.
“Do you condemn violent resistance in all circumstances”
Come try and steal a penny from me and find out.
“Apartheid South Africa was very much closer”
That’s the line, anyway.
I’m no defender of domination and brutality. But I’m not an apologist for political “rent seeking,” either, or any other form of “craft” that everyone still falls for to this day, provided they have titles, fancy fashions and edifice surrounding—as does about 99% of people, apparently including you.
Murder is murder.
Richard,
I live out my “time” on the line in as cold pure calculation as my consciousness level manifests. That’s why I embrace clarity in providing my website, true name, etc. In freedom I walk the fringes of society observing common ground rise and fall. For what else am I here? Civilization is largely insane, and I must learn what I can, if only to tear at the life-form that limits my perception. Having a half century repeat itself through myriads of “human” distortions, there seems so little point to what most folks call living. They hate freedom, and therefore hate anarchy. I sometimes wish I could cite any civilization past or present that was different. But perhaps it is integral to the great mystery that finds me here, to know hell is man-made, and reject it. Sometimes I feel if I betrayed my consciousness, to feign concern for the dark hearts that misidentify as these “things”, I should deserve to be returned to this hell when my body expires. Fortunately as I survived a stolen childhood, I know love does not imply pacifism. When the next mob replaces this global collective, I’ll know their ways are equally insane, and against me. I’d embrace an opportunity to die for innocence, but then love is not selfless, but payment in full. Such understanding manifests solemn emotions as byproducts of thought processes. It follows into the present moment where interconnectedness is realized. This is where infinite truth reveals the brevity of my human life-form, as a whisper from hell, and relieved I am.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
http://www.woodchuckpirate.com
Ilana Mercer, a woman who knows a thing or two about South Africa, weighs in on Mandela as a “Che” like folk hero. http://barelyablog.com/nelson-mandela-the-che-guevara-of-of-africa/
Apartheid wasn’t slavery. Slavery takes away a person’s inherent liberty, apartheid doesn’t. It’s one thing to be told that you can’t leave a plantation, it’s another thing entirely to be told that you can’t shop in someone else’s store. To discriminate based on race is a disgusting, horrendous practice, but it should be allowed. South Africa’s Apartheid government, in addition to enforcing the right of whites to discriminate against blacks in private institutions (which is legitimate), also legally prohibited blacks from equal participation in government, and equal use of public resources (even though they were expected to abide by that government’s laws and – ostensibly at least – contribute to those public resources). That was unequivocally wrong, and Mandela helped remedy that, but that isn’t the main thing he is revered for.
Mandela, like Martin Luther King in the US, is remembered for creating universal racial “equality.” That is: he is hailed as a hero because he was able to successfully impose black people’s will on white people – by forcing whites to deal with blacks, even though they didn’t want to. He was also a Marxist ideologically, so it’s ironic that the one good thing he did (getting blacks equal political footing) was negated once he came into power and proceeded to do his best to subject EVERYONE – white and black – to the worst kind of slavery: slavery of the individual to the collective. This is why, ironically, even though Mandela ensured blacks equal footing in South Africa’s government, and forced their equal footing everywhere else, by hamstringing the more productive whites with socialist taxes and regulations, the economy hasn’t performed as well as it did under Apartheid (let alone as well as it would have had political equality for blacks been the ONLY change) – and blacks (compared to whites) are just as relatively worse off today than they always were.
Yes.
Neil
Ya, pretty much. Just another thief who takes his cut and yawn.
Neil, my understanding of the situation is that under Apartheid there were whites, coloureds, and blacks. Now there are tribes. The situation for many blacks is actually worse now than it was before. Infrastructure has not been built and existing infrastructure has been neglected because of tribal reasons.
Basically it’s the same as in other African countries. The only smart thing the new government has done is not kick whites off their farms or take away their businesses because look how well that worked out in Zimbabwe.
The blacks get to stand in line and vote. If they are in the ‘right tribe’ they get running water, sewers and paved roads. Maybe they get to go to university.
None of which means I support Apartheid. I most certainly do not. The situation in South Africa has been very disappointing to say the least.
“Basically it’s the same as in other African countries. The only smart thing the new government has done is not kick whites off their farms or take away their businesses because look how well that worked out in Zimbabwe.”
Mugabe wants his honkeys back.
Mugabe has his Chinese. Or rather the Chinese own Mugabe. And most of Zimbabwe.
That BS about Mugabe giving the farms to army veterans………….pshhhhhhhh. The Chinese are ranching cattle and exporting them.
Those “hordes” are everywhere, even bandito gold mining in South America.
The Canadian mining companies aren’t exactly making me proud either: Gabriel Resources: Rosia Montana, Romania. After what happened in Coltau, Romania when the tailing dam broke and huge amounts of cyanide was released into the river system… There are other ways to extract gold.
There are legitimate uses for gold. But people in places like India and China are ‘gold sinks’. They don’t buy it as a convertible currency. They buy it to keep it even if they are suffering from malnutrition. You can’t eat gold. Well, you can but it’s not nutritious.
I used to have a 2 baht gold necklace (several ounces). Thais do this too. I sold it when I was starting a company. Thers zero jewelry value, but it’s basically 24-karat.
But you see, at least you kept it in circulation. These other people just horde it. (hence why I got off on a tangent when you used the word ‘hordes’.)
Rosia Montana is for me personal. My ancestors were Saxon gold miners who moved to Transylvania a few hundred years ago. My great grandfather the foreman of a gold mine died in a cave in. That was in the Baia Mare area. I don’t want the tops of entire mountains removed just so corrupt politicians benefit and more gold hording Indians and Chinese and whatnots own more bangles and necklaces. Ridiculous. I don’t want the tops of entire mountains removed. It’s a beautiful place and there’s been enough damage already during the Ceaucescu times. I know the people are poor, but the mines won’t make any difference. The EU is against it and so are the Romanian people. Gabriel Resources can go to hell. Along with their ‘investors’.
It’s is always incredible to me that people so easily believe the tail of 2 chickens in every pot. Yes they get 2 chickens but it is a one time affair. After the initial chickens are doled out they run out. Since the objects/food/items no longer have a profit motive they will no longer have keepers to tend to them.
Look at Venezuela as they sink deeper in to communism. Everything is scarce now except violence. Much the same that has happened in South Africa.
The workers got the farms but no knowledge of how to work them and the people willing to help show the people how to work the farms were killed off because they were white which led to further scarcity of knowledge. And what did the people do… They blamed the white farmers for the misery that ensued.
I’ll agree that Mandela was no saint, though some could argue (right or wrong) that his violence was warranted in a society that was in some ways even more oppresive towards non-whites. But as an interesting side note, Ghandi, originally born in South Africa, was not immune to participating in the racism of his country of birth when he was a lawyer there. Here are a couple of his choice words:
“A Kaffir is to be taxed because he does not work enough: an Indian is to be taxed because he works too much.” (Kaffir is the South African equivalent of the N word)
Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.”
I guess the lesson in all this is never to hold our saints to be perfect.
@Gaby
You may wish to note that I was very careful in my post, of differentiating actual violence from an absolute commitment to not.
You forgot to mention that MLK was a womanizer.
No offense was meant in my original post, it’s just I’ve become a bit jaded personally in some of my past idealizations and essentially am re-evaluating those I hold in high esteem. I grew up in Africa, but far from South Africa, even though I’m a white guy, so of course there, Mandela was a saint, and venerating him as a living saint wound its way into my early memories.
While personally, I think on the whole, Mandela may have done more good than bad (assuming he truly was transformed in prison), and his veneration as a saint certain upon his death, I’ll be honest and do see the posturing of world leaders in S. Africa as a bit disingenuous (I’m also dreading the inevitable Bono performance; I think he’ll be there).
Personally, even today, I’d place Aung San Suu Kyi heads and shoulders above Mandela, but I’m prepared for news to come showing she’s just as human as all of us.
Still enjoy your site and keep being honest.
Thank goodness to hear another side of the story – the whole adulation of this man is nausiating.
Gaby A. in re: Aung San Suu Kyi………..she is certainly saying nothing to stop the violence against the muslims in her country. Her halo has slipped.
It would be nice if the Boer just up and left, wouldn’t it? Then ZA could be the place of peace it was menat to be before Whites came and f*cked it all up. The Boer don’t rate anyhow. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3310935
Poor kids. Where are Bono and the gobblers now? Is this the justice they imagined, when blacks were liberated by the School Bus Bomber and his ruthless necklacing wife?
@Gabriella: touche. I guess my personal takeaway from all this is decide how many flaws I’m willing to accept from those I look up to and decide if that is a cost/benefit analysis I can live with.
I don’t have much to say about this except that everything is a Story. It is therefore biased and subjective, even though a narrative can be accepted by a whole country or more. It remains a construct based on perceived events, often distorted from objective facts (or let’s say that objective facts don’t really exist as everything is perceived and related by subjective individuals – what matters here is the degree of agreement over a given story). This to say that I don’t care for mediatic figures and idols. What I choose to believe is more related to individuals that I have a chance to see in action in my local environment, and the consequences of their actions. The rest is legends or myths: believe them or not.
Mandela resisted domination, might is right if you don’t violently resist, any non-violent resolution is catch 22.
Gary…
Ever hear of Gandhi?
Steven, well yes, not sure how that is relevant, the brits didn’t goto war with Ghandi, if they had i’m in no doubt of the result.
Gary, you don’t understand CD. The Brits didn’t roll over the place specifically because they were not encountering armed resistance, but peaceful disobedience, with one of its tenants that you even protect your oppressors against those who would use violence.
True CD has always been something the state has a hard time dealing with.
Mandela is a murderer of innocent people and he pleaded guilty to 160 counts of involvement of terrorist like murder. So go clap all you like, give us all the pragmatic platitudes you like.
Richard, or to look at it another way, the brits didn’t *have* or chose not to enforce their might, either way CD didn’t defeat might, the might (if it existed) retreated, CD exists all over the place, states deal with it, the example of Ghandi you could say is a suspicious exception. yes Mandela is a murderer like any warrior at war and is an example of violent resistance to domination, the same as any war since human invention, you can’t win a fight in war with peace.
@Gary,
Yeah… They retreated. What happened in India was for all intents and purposes a full on holocaust. The Indians were, at all levels, made in to slaves and fodder for the Brits. Britain was not only shamed out of India but I am sure a large part was due to WWII. India’s independence was gained in 1947 which is 2 years after the big war.
Note also the mutiny that occurred in the 1850’s where it is estimated that millions of Indians died revolting against the Brits. The Brits were ruthless bloodthirsty monsters. Gandhi was smart. He knew the Brits would “roll” over them again if they went in to attack mode. The Indian’s simply made it impossible for the Brits to kill them because they themselves would die to save a Brit.
is necklacing where they put a tire around the neck? & burn it.
my S. African colleague told me he saw some remnants (charred bodies) of such against those “white collaborators”. no wonder he does not want to go back.
Being in SA now, having grown up during the political change in SA and having lived in the UK for years before returning home gives me perspective.
I’m torn in my reflection on this. The results of his terrorist actions are well documented but probably not well known. Important to know.
His later actions that were partly responsible for avoiding large scale violence and possible all out civil war might have some redemptive qualities and may be worth celebrating.
I’ll remain reflective and focus on how I can improve my life and that of those around be who hold similar values. If some of his words inspire me to that, then I’ll use them.
It’s going to be interesting to see which political party will distort his image the most as we run up to elections here.
Britain may have been a winner of WW2, but was an ultimate loser in the finance department. The country was bust. The bottom line was Britain could not afford to keep its colonies, just like the USSR could not keep its ‘colonies’ either in 1989.
Dr. Gee, the South African ‘terrorist’ branch of the ANC invented necklacing.
“CD didn’t defeat might, the might (if it existed) retreated”
This is the point.
“yes Mandela is a murderer like any warrior at war and is an example of violent resistance to domination, the same as any war since human invention, you can’t win a fight in war with peace.”
That wasn’t a “war.” It was political resistance with non-violence CD already established and Mandela directly convinced the ANC leadership to resort to killings, including many innocents.
So what if CD worked on one occasion in the face of might (possibly weak), might may have retreated but it still rules the world, organising true CD against not so obvious injustices doesn’t seem workable.
Presumably Mandela believed the non-violent CD wasn’t going to work and then in his eyes his only recourse to resist his violent oppressor was to engage in violent struggle, this is the problem of human nature, if violent opressors could always be subdued by non-violent persuasion then there would be no *wars*, history shows that violent opressors exist where there is competition for resources, the only solution in my sight to the conundrum of war is to remove this competition, which isn’t going to happen until we face up to the realities of human struggle.
Woodchuck, freedom in clarity binds ‘us’ to our ego, only the truly anonymous are free here. No I cannot cite any civilisation, however the brevity of civilisation is insignificant compared to the life of mankind in which were free.
Gary,
Ego is not real, it is story. No amount of faith or denial can make it real.
Ego misidentification is a choice, and is the core reason for all mankind’s suffering.
I’m inclined to respect your right to suffer.
Regarding your commitment to initiate force against me to bind me to your suffering, you don’t know freedom, that’s why you hate it. Know your enemy. Or don’t. I’ve had guns, knives and vehicle attempts on my life. All failed. I’m devoid of fear and amused at the pontificating of phoney hippie altruists attempting to bind me to socialism story (ego) with the stroke of a pen. Neither do they know their enemy. They never see themselves unless reflected in others eyes. The truth is not for all men, it is only for those who seek it. Freedom is not aversion to principle. You were (not we’re) always free. Accept it or don’t. I don’t care. It’s your story.
Have a very nice day.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
http://www.woodchuckpirate.com
Woodchuck, I refer to ego in the sense of someone’s precious reputation and pride which *usually* binds their expression, the nameless disembodied and unidentified actors can be totally free, a point you can take or not. The truth is in nature and it cannot be fooled, to be stumbled upon only by those uncertain enough to be free. I ‘m a philosophical anonymous actor and devoid of all political judgement, not what you may think you want to see, I could say I’m inclined to respect your freedom as only those that oppress need be enemies, a point of view that can be considered. You’re visible to me in my story.
Gary,
Ego is a biological mechanism inherent to the human brain. As such the human life-form is a venue of dysfunction. “I” am not my body. “I” am no actor. “I” am no-thing. I am inclined to kill my ego whenever I recognize it. Ego is always dysfunctional. True self emerges as ego dies. “I” simply am. Consciousness rises and falls. Truth is infinite. Truth is not intrinsic to initiating force against individuals.
Collective ego is collected dysfunction, and is always intrinsic to initiating force against individuals. No valid philosophy can’t be practiced to the nth degree. Pragmatism (aversion to principle) is required to sustain semi-consciousness, to facilitate altruism intrinsic to collectivism, to initiate force against individuals, because a conscious person is incapable of initiating force as in consciousness recognition of interconnectedness always prevails, no matter the unconscious level of others.
Truth is the enemy of collectivism. But of course collectivists strategically avoid “knowing” truth because then they would be out of the business of making enemies. What would “collectivists” want with freedom? In clarity, collectivism is manifest from ego misidentification, a relationship an individual maintains with a story in their head about who they are. The dilemma of truth continually confronts ego suggesting “if the story isn’t real, perhaps I’m not real”? This manifests knee-jerk reactions of fear and hostility. And so they usually choose to cling to their ego misidentification, retreat to their comfort zone (pain-body), and commit their thought processes to “faith”. However unconscious behavior has real consequences in the real world. Love does not imply pacifism.
Regarding my appearance in your story, this couldn’t be more delusional. I am you. There is no separateness. Look inside, kill your ego, I am there. You were always free. Accept it or don’t. No one can withhold enlightenment or give it to you. They certainly can’t force it upon you. This is the nature of infinite truth. Knowing the truth doesn’t matter, only the truth matters. One has to become ever more UNconscious in order to yield ego as a shielded excuse against truth.
All credit to Eckhart Tolle, who reminded me of what I always knew.
Thank you for your conversation. Have a very nice day.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
http://www.woodchuckpirate.com
Gary,
Given what words (signposts) have been erected by our dialogue (flow of meaning not conversation), do you perceive common ground in my perception that the mixed economy model can not sustain civilization, as it is modeled upon betrayal of truth? The mixed economy model solely exists to farm up corruption fertilized with moral hazard. The collectivists that cling to the mixed economy model are at war with truth. It matters not what costume they wear.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
http://www.woodchuckpirate.com
It requires zero force to destroy the beasts of mixed economy model tyranny. The answer is found only at the individual level. One simply legally withdraws their economic participation. No force is necessary. The initiation of force returns upon the source.
Current events have revealed the exponential rise in fiscal costs required to sustain the mixed economy model, and that cost is the ever-expanding consumptive economy. The mixed economy model is not sustainable. It was created by the age old witchdoctor-tyrant collective seeking to enslave others. It is designed to rise/collapse empires and continually shift toward geographical locations of natural resources. In current times, “people” are no longer a resource as their numbers exceed utility and the powers that be continue to scheme their eradication. Those that cling to gods and masters are most complicit with genocide. History repeats itself.
The conflict is as always freedom versus statism.
Statists call me enemy. I watch the circus in clear focus. No gods no masters. The Mandela story reflects upon mankind the insanity it deserves.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr
http://www.woodchuckpirate.com
@Gaby Hmm Gahndi was born in India, but don’t let that get in the way of facts.