# What Can We Do To Support Peace?



## Lord Strange

O.k, this is sort of my big deal. I'm a big believer that the world would be a lot better if people would work towards peace and nonviolence.
Are any of you here interested in promoting peace and nonviolence? What do you think is the best way to encourage peace and nonviolence in practical, pragmatic ways? I think if we couold get nuclear disarmament, that would be a good start!!!


----------



## LeeevinKansas

How about no matter how many revolutions are started, no matter how much blood you shed...no matter how much propaganda you spread, no matter how many peace rallies you go to, WE WILL NEVER ACHIEVE WORLD PEACE.

seriously dudes...theres what 9 billion ppl on earth almost? a million die every day a million are born.....

it would take multiple people a life times work with the same agenda to even make a noticeable dent...

plus you have to take in peoples religions, lifestyles, beliefs, etc are all going to come into plaay. everyones idea of world peace is different.

and what about those who dont want world peace? will you purge them from the earth in your conquest for world peace?

world peace is impossible.


----------



## baconrind

Ooh ooh! I have an opinion!
How about destroying every violent living thing with violence? That would destroy the planet. Thus bringing world peace. Yay! ( did you see that pack of lions kill the elephant?)
I support peoples right for peaceful protest but I don't see it getting them anywhere. Occupy Wall street for example. Peaceful protest right? Would be a lot more affective if they actually started fighting back. Start sniping the 1%. Corral the cops macing innocent people in a big plastic orange fence and mace them back! This peaceful protest could also be the catalyst of civil resistance. Marshal law. Concentration camps. Doesn't sound very peaceful. But if you want to go take away all of those nuclear weapons so the world can have peace... good luck disposing of them. They never should have been created. Peace!


----------



## wildboy860

PEACE AND ANARCHY =


----------



## soapybum

I cant stand dogmatic pacificsts. Look at any "great non-violent leader" and whatever social movement they were part of and you'll find that they werent, or the movement succeeded because of violent means.


----------



## CXR1037

Seriously, world peace cannot and will NEVER exist. Dissenting opinions, beliefs, etc. There's no way to end it. Peace can only be attained at a personal level. The second another person enters the fray, you have the potential for an end of peace.

I think the best you can do is sway a FEW people toward peace. Be the best person you can, don't put people down, etc. Being a good person is contagious to some people.

cxr - "so goodbye to anarchy, we gotta do the right thing, and install some social systems so our friends survive the spring..."


----------



## venusinpisces

I think you've arrived at the wrong website. Expect hostility, apathy and ridicule. Many people who post here are jaded and take belief in pacifism as a sign of weakness. At any rate, my opinion is that peace is primarily the responsibility of the powerful. For example, you can't expect a victim of domestic violence to remain peaceful in the face of assault, nor an indigenous community whose entire way of life is being forcibly eradicated via neocolonial policies. However, it is reasonable to demand for our government to end all foreign wars and occupations immediately. And it is also within the bounds of possibility to build a U.S.-based social justice movement which practices nonviolence as the default standard, and this has, in fact, been achieved at the overwhelming majority of Occupy protests. Given the current technological capacities the military police state has at its disposal for crowd control, infiltration and surveillance, there really is no other effective option at this point.


----------



## Donnie

> Seriously, world peace cannot and will NEVER exist


 
Agreed.

I do think that we can make the world a bit _more_ peaceful though. Education, knowledge, and the spread of wealth are some of the best ways to make the world a better place. It's up to us to make changes, because nobodies going to do it for us.

It's easy to get pessimistic when thinking about everything that's fucked up, but think about all the things that are beautiful in our world: music, art, friendship. It's our responsibility to make the most of what we have, even if it's just a rock floating in outer space. We can't make life perfect for everyone, but we can do our best.


----------



## Zorila

violence is part of life, basicly life cannot exist without violence, i simply get it and don't criticize it and it works for me, there is a balance and without violence peace can't exist. this principle also applies to dumpstering, without consumerist people, some squatter opportunities would disapear, or if every individual were a squatter, life would get very primitive and i don't think that every squatter sees a good thing in it


----------



## Gudj

Lord Strange said:


> O.k, this is sort of my big deal. I'm a big believer that the world would be a lot better if people would work towards peace and nonviolence.
> Are any of you here interested in promoting peace and nonviolence? What do you think is the best way to encourage peace and nonviolence in practical, pragmatic ways? I think if we couold get nuclear disarmament, that would be a good start!!!


 
If you want to help create a less fucked up world, the first strep is to drop the pacifist bullshit and start taking actual responsibility for the less visible violence that you and everyone else actively help perpetuate daily.
The next step is probably something along the lines of destroying the root causes of systemic, normalized or hidden violence by any means necessary.


----------



## venusinpisces

Gudj said:


> If you want to help create a less fucked up world, the first strep is to drop the pacifist bullshit .


Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing to Martin Luther King? Or to any of the huge number of people of color who practice direct action tactics formed around principles of nonviolence?


----------



## justo

venusinpisces said:


> Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing to Martin Luther King? Or to any of the huge number of people of color who practice direct action tactics formed around principles of nonviolence?


 
I would.

Black people are still second rate in a lot of places, especially where I'm from. Kids are still being taught that they are basically a subspecies, I was brought up like that and so were all my white friends. I knew it was bullshit from the beginning and there are other anomalies like myself.

The slaves should have rose up and joined the native americans in killing their slave masters.


----------



## venusinpisces

justo said:


> The slaves should have rose up and joined the native americans in killing their slave masters.


Actually, that was exactly what happened in Haiti and people there have it far worse than anyone in the States. Obviously there is a long way to go before racism is dismantled but at least black people here can eat in a restaurant without having the cops called on account of Jim Crow laws.


----------



## porky

I read original post but not all the replies but would like to say my bit anyway... WORLD PEACE is FANTASY, to get rid of all forms of conflict you would also have to eradicate all religions, all cultural and historical backgrounds of humanity.. hold on you can have WORLD PEACE just eradicate hew human race....


----------



## Milque Toast

Idealism? People are prone to greed, and rage. As long as dere's guns and boolets we gon' catch some, ruthless.


----------



## wizehop

I say kill everyone who apposes my opinion. Might not be many people left after, but we would all be holding hands dancing in circles with rainbows shooting out our ass. Doesn't get any simpler than that.


----------



## travelin

history has shown that the best way to assure peace is to be prepared for war...


----------



## shiftingGEARS

to subdue violence would be to subdue the laws of nature, to subdue the laws of nature you surely will be diging yourself an early grave. in the real world its survival of the fittest, your ether willing to kill for your own survival or your not, if not i suggest you hide under a rock the rest of your life, because the laws of nature will not be subdued.


----------



## Vonuist

Point at soldiers and laugh. They hate that.


----------



## travelin

yes, point at the soldiers and laugh.

perhaps they hate that.

but...

_they will lay down their own lives for you to have the freedom to laugh at them._


----------



## frzrbrnd

history actually shows that the opposite of the statement "the best way to assure peace is to be prepared for war" is true. preparing for war is precisely what makes war inevitable: the nation that isn't armed doesn't fight.


----------



## Vonuist

travelin said:


> yes, point at the soldiers and laugh.
> 
> perhaps they hate that.
> 
> but...
> 
> _they will lay down their own lives for you to have the freedom to laugh at them._


 
The only thing soldiers have ever done for me was to beat the shit out of me in Aldershot high street and leave me in traction for eight weeks.
They are paid killers in the employ of the state.


----------



## frzrbrnd

some of them died so you could have cheap oil.


----------



## Vonuist

frzrbrnd said:


> some of them died so you could have cheap oil.


I don't drive.


----------



## frzrbrnd

a) that wasn't a statement in favor of warring for oil.
b) if you hitchhike or hop trains, you're still dependent on oil even if you don't pay for it; you still benefit from oil being cheap.
c) transport is not the only use for oil. plastics are generally created using oil.


----------



## Vonuist

frzrbrnd said:


> a) that wasn't a statement in favor of warring for oil.
> b) if you hitchhike or hop trains, you're still dependent on oil even if you don't pay for it; you still benefit from oil being cheap.
> c) transport is not the only use for oil. plastics are generally created using oil.


 
I feel no moral imperitive to support those employed to murder on behalf of the state, regardless of the justification offered.


----------



## frzrbrnd

neither do i. i was being a smartass, and i'm going to guess that i am probably in agreement with you regarding the state, military, and so on.


----------



## Vonuist

frzrbrnd said:


> neither do i. i was being a smartass, and i'm going to guess that i am probably in agreement with you regarding the state, military, and so on.


I have three coffees and a row with a creationist, I'm in a fighting mood tonight. lol


----------



## freedude2012

i theink the best way to find peace is to start in small groops and then jus keep passin the happyness around
P.S. i used to be the guy that hated everyone till i found myself alone and misrable


----------



## Matthew LaVergne

at some point perhaps people will realize that we can start by setting an example. taking into account the laws of nature, physics and all other scientific statutes that place human beings in a position where they believe they understand their surroundings, violence will always exist. it is a daily occurrence in the animal world, where distinctions between peace and violence are non existent. it only makes sense that it would filter into the realm of humans, those holy, supreme beings that sit on their thrones of waste and destruction (we've got it figured out, right?). my point is, if you want to live in a world that operates solely off of peace, go join a commune, grow your own food, cornhole your neighbor, and smoke a lot of hash. life will be wonderful, albeit incredibly bland. as a half assed pacifist, i don't deny having an awful temper. as a matter of fact, i'm the fucking worst. however, envisioning a world where nuclear technology is no longer necessary starts in my head, with my ideals, and the way i treat the people i surround myself with.


----------



## soapybum

Just cuz it deals w/ the subject, anyone read How NonViolence Protects the State? Great book and you can dl it on zinelibrary.info


----------



## vodka4581

pacifism can be fucking hard sometimes. 

the word "violence" carries a negative connotation it seems. like implying anger or something. what if you just crack someone, but your not pissed about it, thats not violence right? "its all good bro i just had to crack you in the face" right?


----------



## LittleDoe

My only answer to this: Peace would be great! But it's f***ing impossible man. That's all there is to it.

Unless someone figures out a way to get laughing gas to float down from the heavens above and infect everyone on earth, people are going to continue killing each other and screwing each other over. All day. Every day. Until the world ends. Or we all kill eachother. Whatever comes first. The end


----------



## scales

theres no unity in the punk culture first unity and then lets talk about peace


----------



## soapybum

Before you talk about peace you need to define what peace and violence mean...


----------



## scatwomb

In my opinion, the use of violence should be based on very specific circumstances. It depends on the severity of what you're protesting - if you think your college should use fluorescent light bulbs, you probably shouldn't be burning down buildings on campus or macing cops. If, however, your entire way of life or culture is at risk because of imposed economic "development," for instance, I think you have the right and responsibility to fight and kill your oppressors. If you're freedoms are being stomped on (like, real freedoms, not a prohibition to shoot up a limitless amount of heroin) you definitely have the right to fight back with violence. Also, I think that violence should only be used when other strategies are obviously not working - it should be a last resort. You will get more support this way and it gives a greater sense of urgency to what you're fighting for.

And, non-violence should work in tandem with violence - if you don't feel comfortable using force, get out in the streets and support those who are willing to give their lives for what they believe in. Make websites or radio shows to support what you believe in. In order to win, we need a diverse strategy including violence and non-violence, and everything in between!

I think, first and foremost, pacifists need to stop demonizing dedicated brothers and sisters who are willing to give their lives for what they believe. And, violent revolutionaries need to realize that non-violent protestors play a very real role in winning the revolution. So, all y'all motherfuckers need to get off your high-horse and realize that we all depend on each other and ought to use every strategy at our disposal to win this fight.


----------



## Driftwhistler

The best anyone can do is set an example and hope someone takes your lead.


----------



## BenjaminHunter

*Violence is preventable*, for the most part, amongst humans (It's necessary in some situations in other species, like in hunting or mating rituals, but we have intellectual/emotional capabilities that, as far as I know, aren't as developed in other species). "Evidence shows strong relationships between levels of violence and potentially modifiable factors such as concentrated poverty, income and gender inequality, the harmful use of alcohol, and the absence of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships between children and parents." These situations are all extensions of ourselves, so first we have to do our best to purge ourselves of all violence, directly and indirectly.

Purging ourselves of violence indirectly starts with the *end of our supporting violence promoting entities, such as the state, and most corporations.* Without our support/submission they have no power. We're the workers... Now, this will result in a radical, but positive, change in lifestyle, but you folks know all about that.  Anyways, to avoid paying taxes, which would indirectly support wars, bail-outs, and nonrenewable energy projects, you would either have to find systematic ways past it, or just quit your job, which would give you the added plus of not participating in the economy that brings about mass inequality.

To make up for the lack of money, and therefore the lack of resources, you could spend your time that you would've spent working for someone "above" you, you could use that time to garden, tap trees, dumpster dive, write, etc, giving you other means to support yourself. Then rather than exchanging your skills/fruits of labor for food, you could barter for what you needed, with like minded people. It's all about the community! In this way you would be by passing the evil corporations as well, cause you wouldn't be buying their products.

Directly, we could take small steps in our own lives to prevent violence, such as going vegan/vegetarian, finding alternative ways to vent frustration (meditation, perhaps), bicycling rather than driving, etc. *It's a long journey*, and perhaps we'll never get to complete non violence, but the satisfaction that comes from working towards something good should be enough, even for individualist egoists. *Being good makes you feel good.*


----------



## justo

Vonuist said:


> They are paid killers in the employ of the state.


 
That shit is so fucking true. We are fed the illusion that they are protecting our freedoms. Who are they protecting it from? The U.S. Military exists to execute the will of the corporate elite that runs this country. The whole "fight for our freedom" bullshit is just rhetoric used to keep the masses in their place and to keep them consuming, giving them the temporary sedation that everything is alright because of these pricks with machine guns.


----------



## Pheonix

BenjaminHunter said:


> *Violence is preventable*, for the most part, amongst humans (It's necessary in some situations in other species, like in hunting or mating rituals, but we have intellectual/emotional capabilities that, as far as I know, aren't as developed in other species). "Evidence shows strong relationships between levels of violence and potentially modifiable factors such as concentrated poverty, income and gender inequality, the harmful use of alcohol, and the absence of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships between children and parents." These situations are all extensions of ourselves, so first we have to do our best to purge ourselves of all violence, directly and indirectly.


 
You have the freedom to purge yourself as you see fit, however if you want to make an impact you need to "convert the masses". The problem is the non-violent pacifists are so full of themselves and so closed minded on their beliefs that they come off like a bunch of bible-thumping street preachers. It's not an effective form of conversion, if you want people to believe your right stop acting so righteous.



BenjaminHunter said:


> Purging ourselves of violence indirectly starts with the *end of our supporting violence promoting entities, such as the state, and most corporations.* Without our support/submission they have no power. We're the workers... Now, this will result in a radical, but positive, change in lifestyle, but you folks know all about that.  Anyways, to avoid paying taxes, which would indirectly support wars, bail-outs, and nonrenewable energy projects, you would either have to find systematic ways past it, or just quit your job, which would give you the added plus of not participating in the economy that brings about mass inequality.


 
Telling people that they should quit their jobs is your first step towards being that self-righteous pacifist douche-bag that you don't want to be.



BenjaminHunter said:


> To make up for the lack of money, and therefore the lack of resources, you could spend your time that you would've spent working for someone "above" you, you could use that time to garden, tap trees, dumpster dive, write, etc, giving you other means to support yourself. Then rather than exchanging your skills/fruits of labor for food, you could barter for what you needed, with like minded people. It's all about the community! In this way you would be by passing the evil corporations as well, cause you wouldn't be buying their products.


 
the problem with that is the problem that currency solved, but that's another topic for another thread. just because currency has become corrupt doesn't mean it doesn't have it's purposes.



BenjaminHunter said:


> Directly, we could take small steps in our own lives to prevent violence, such as going vegan/vegetarian, finding alternative ways to vent frustration (meditation, perhaps), bicycling rather than driving, etc. *It's a long journey*, and perhaps we'll never get to complete non violence, but the satisfaction that comes from working towards something good should be enough, even for individualist egoists. *Being good makes you feel good.*


 
again your coming off as a self-righteous douche by telling people they need to convert to bike-riding, meditating vegan pacifists. *BEING EVIL MAKES ME FEEL BETTER.*


----------



## outskirts

I think DJ Quik had the answer in his song Get Loaded:

"I don't get it
I mean you niggas claim to be riders and thugged out
And super OG and all that old shit
But for real, what would you really rather be doing?

Would you rather be in these streets
Scrappin' and shootin' with these niggas
Or somewhere with a blunt in your mouth
Gettin ya dick sucked by a bad ass bitch?
Oh yeah that's me babe"


----------



## Eager

I think one really effective way of promoting peace; would be to kill all cops, capitalists, and politicians* and distribute their stuff equally among the rest of us. But then again; I'm pretty old fashioned.

*Of course this is just theoretical; violence is bad, unless its carried out legally by the state.


----------



## ipoPua

travelin said:


> _will lay down their own lives for you to have the freedom to laugh at them._


i'm so sick of hearing that stupid bullshit. when was the last time a single goddamn soldier did a single goddamn thing that had jackSHIT to do with my freedoms? long long time before i was born, long long time before most soldiers were born. killing people does nothing for my freedom, so fuck that.



pheonix said:


> Telling people that they should quit their jobs is your first step towards being that self-righteous pacifist douche-bag that you don't want to be.
> 
> 
> again your coming off as a self-righteous douche by telling people they need to convert to bike-riding, meditating vegan pacifists. *BEING EVIL MAKES ME FEEL BETTER.*


 
he never told anyone they 'need' to do anything. he was posing what he considers good answers to the threadquestion, answers some people agree with and some people don't. he wasn't forcing his opinion on anyone, just putting it forth.


anyway as i came here to say, although i'm sure most of it's been said,, the only way to lasting peace is through death. chaos is the fact of life, violence is a fact of chaos. i respect you for wanting to make things better, but trying to avoid all conflict isnt the way to do that. the way to improve things is to speak up when you think you should, walk away when you think you shouldnt, and be the best example you know how to be. thats the most you and i can do to bring peace.
just my take.


----------



## RnJ

Lord Strange, I wish to see a more peaceful and nonviolent world, and I think it is possible to much larger degree than we're seeing now. While I blame no oppressed minorities for their resort to violence, I entirely reject it as an ideal -- forget the punk popularity contest, I already lose all my votes for that. That's fine.

"Johan Galtung, the father of peace studies often refers to the distinction between ‘negative peace’ and ‘positive peace’ (e.g. Galtung 1996). *Negative peace refers to the absence of violence*. When, for example, a ceasefire is enacted, a negative peace will ensue. It is negative because something undesirable stopped happening (e.g. the violence stopped, the oppression ended). *Positive peace is filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution of conflict.*

Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. It means the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way.

Peace therefore exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict positively – *with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interest of all concerned.*"


----------



## ped

travelin said:


> yes, point at the soldiers and laugh.
> 
> perhaps they hate that.
> 
> but...
> 
> _they will lay down their own lives for you to have the freedom to laugh at them._


 

They'll lay down their lives for what ever the state asks them to do. Never once has a soldier fought for anything other than hegemony and furthering state power. Are you really on an otherwise anarchist board stating blatant state propaganda? The very slogan of "they're fighting for your freedom" was invented by Ivy Lee, the famous propagandist, for the Wilson administration to manipulate the public minds in supportinng WWI.


----------



## Keith2

Global peace cannot be achieved, the only thing an American activist can hope to achieve is preventing the USA from going to war. In the 2008 elections for president the two anti-War candidates were Dennis Kucinich(democrat) and Ron Paul(republican). In 2012 elections the only anti-war candidate was Ron Paul. We can support anti-war candidates for president and if those anti-war candidates get elected hopefully America would not be at war anymore.


----------



## Kabukimono

I try to promote world peace and non violence, but in an indirect manner, I don't like to be directly associated to any group of people/beliefs or movement (at least I have still not found one whom I will openly state I belong too) 
My way of promoting peace and non violence. Is by the way I handle myself on the road. I promote peace by being peaceful, happy, approachable and non violence within my daily life - regardless of the situation.
My two cents.

K.m


----------



## ped

Keith2 said:


> Global peace cannot be achieved, the only thing an American activist can hope to achieve is preventing the USA from going to war. In the 2008 elections for president the two anti-War candidates were Dennis Kucinich(democrat) and Ron Paul(republican). In 2012 elections the only anti-war candidate was Ron Paul. We can support anti-war candidates for president and if those anti-war candidates get elected hopefully America would not be at war anymore.


 
You should know better than this. Mussolini reminded the world that war brings a nation together for a common cause and overcomes class division. War abroad is peace and stability at home.


----------



## Pheonix

Honesty I think there is a way to achieve world peace, but the pacifists won't like it. The world as a whole will never be convinced to take steps towards world peace until after the whole world suffers greatly from World War III. If you really want world peace then sit back and let World War III happen and hope you survive long enough to experience the World Peace that will come after the war. Since I think World War III is inevitable I'm not happy that Obama and all the other liberals are trying to weaken our military, that's exactly what China wants us to do. Russia will be the wild card and hopefully they realize every time they back another communist government they get stabbed in the back by their so-called allies.


----------



## Thoreau

Pheonix said:


> Honesty I think there is a way to achieve world peace, but the pacifists won't like it. The world as a whole will never be convinced to take steps towards world peace until after the whole world suffers greatly from World War III. If you really want world peace then sit back and let World War III happen and hope you survive long enough to experience the World Peace that will come after the war. Since I think World War III is inevitable I'm not happy that Obama and all the other liberals are trying to weaken our military, that's exactly what China wants us to do. Russia will be the wild card and hopefully they realize every time they back another communist government they get stabbed in the back by their so-called allies.


 
No matter how weak the US military gets, its still hugely powerfull, half the worlds military budget on defense is the US defense budget (aprox)
and with many countries owning nuclear arsenal, the MAD (mutually assured destruction) takes place and things will hopefully be settled nicely

Also, trust the BRICS (Brasil, Russia, dont know what I stands for, China, nor S) But those are the anti-hegemon and will opose to US influence - they tried some time ago to create an IMF-like organization betwhen themselves, so think about war not in military strikes but in power by organizations

although wars will happend, and makes alot of sense to stop democratic (as if) countries to go to wars they create, others dont have such luck


----------



## Pheonix

Thoreau said:


> Also, trust the BRICS (Brasil, Russia, dont know what I stands for, China, nor S) But those are the anti-hegemon and will opose to US influence - they tried some time ago to create an IMF-like organization betwhen themselves, so think about war not in military strikes but in power by organizations


 
Why should I trust BRICS? I don't know what anti-hegemon means. I think we could destroy China's power with a simple embargo but the truth is the powers that be in USA and China are organized together against the people of both countries in order to gain power. If we are ever successful at overthrowing our own corrupt powers that be, China will probably get nervous and start a war against us. Even though I'm not happy with with our federalist government or capitalist society I definitely don't want our country to become controlled by the Communist Party of China.


----------

