Pacifism: Kocker's view

Derek Zeanah

New member
(Apologies for spelling the author's name wrong. Should be Robert L. Kocher.)

Found the following while reading this.

It's too wordy, IMHO, but I think it does a good job of expressing both sides of the Pacifism debate that came up during Folkbabe's visit a few weeks ago. (Yes, he's biased against her stand, as most of us were.)

I've been working hard to understand some of our political opponents (those who favor disarmament and an omnipotent state), and I think this helps explain how some of them feel (like Folkbabe).

Thoughts?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Pacifists and adherents to schizoid philosophies tend to be parasitic, egocentric, and very childish. They don't want reality to disturb the comfort level of a self-centered immature world. They want a free ride. They want the benefits without the duties and responsibilities. They want to be breast fed. They want the right to live according to their desires, but they don't want to defend those rights for themselves, or everybody. They don't need to take that responsibility if other people can be made that responsibility for them.

Schizopacifistic adherents sit in childish rebellion with feelings of superiority, while arguing that if everyone shared their view, there would be no conflicts or wars. The reality of the adult world is that, whether we, or they, like it or not, there are, and always will be, other people who don't share that view and who are just as dedicated to the enslavement of others as schizoid adherents are dedicated to their view. That must be accepted as a part of growing up and accepting mature adult reality.

Schizopacifists argue that the beginning of a better non-violent world must start somewhere, and they are making that start. The reality is, that is not a start, but a finish. It produces increased violence as it confers confidence in unopposed success upon criminal elements in the world. Aside from debate about basic nature of human goodness or badness, there are people who by accident of warped background, by genetic predisposition, or by character disorder, become dedicated to imposing destruction upon those around them on individual or organized levels. Had the schizopacifistic view been prevalent to the point of a resultant non-opposition of Hitler, as was actually advanced by Gandhi, virtually every Jew in the world would have been eradicated and, from a reading of Mein Kampf, Hitler would have gone on to make the Catholics wish they had been Jews. Stalin killed 70,000,000 people to firm up communism in Russia, and if unopposed would have killed another 200,000,000 elsewhere. Mao killed millions in his first revolution, millions more in the cultural revolution, and if he had not been opposed, would have killed hundreds of millions more. Ho Chi Minh killed millions in North Viet Nam. After the fall of Viet Nam and South East Asia, Pol Pot killed 25 percent of the Cambodian population in pursuit of the ideal communist society. That is a reality schizopacifists demand not to face while they demand to remain in rebellion of not leaving their child's world. They leave other people to face the realities. However, they should bear responsibility for the deaths they ultimately cause.

Schizopacifists can play a sadistic oppositional-defiant game from the security of knowing others, in order to save themselves, will protect the schizopacifists from suffering the consequences of their own thinking.
[/quote]

------------------
I stand before Almighty God and I'll say what I have said for years. I will never again soil my responsibility as a voter by voting again for a candidate who turns their back on the fundamental principle of justice by which this nation's freedom lives or dies. --Alan Keyes, 2/2/2000

[This message has been edited by dzeanah (edited June 11, 2000).]
 
Sounds like a description of Clinton and Chuck Schumer. I used to know people like that in the New Age and vegetarian scene in New York City. They are tiresome and unimaginative people.
 
Yup, that's about right. Denial is a powerful force. People will do just about anything rather than face up to reality.
 
Reading and digesting anything Kocher has written is the equivalent of getting a doctoral level lecture on whatever it is he's discussing.
 
I don't think this is a fair or legitimate description of Folkbabe's views - she certainly takes on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship more than the average American does, for instance (unless you think the only duty is to own a gun). She defends both her own and other's rights, nor did Folkbabe ever deny that there were evil people in the world.

In short, I can't see any relationship between this passage and Folkbabe's stated views; just a lot of pseudointellectual trash that only holds up when presented to an audience of the converted.

If anything, I think this is a good sign that you've completely failed in your attempt to understand your political opponants. You haven't made a real attempt to understand folkbabe; you've just found a piece that comforts you by pathologizing her views. I don't agree with all of Folkbabe's pacifist views - or yours - but I don't have a need to deny that reasonable adults can disagree with me, or to quote bizarre intellectual contortions dedicated to showing that anyone who disagrees with my political philosophy must be denying reality. Maybe you should try to follow her example.

--Amp
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If anything, I think this is a good sign that you've completely failed in your attempt to understand your political opponants. You haven't made a real attempt to understand folkbabe; you've just found a piece that comforts you by pathologizing her views.[/quote]

You'd have to say this when the "General" forum appears to have disappeared. :D

OK, enlighten me. :) This would be easier if I could quote her posts, but I'll have to go from memory instead...

Folkbabe said something about being associated with the Quakers, and believing in what I would consider an extreme sort of pacifism -- one where the use of force in defense of one's self (or one's loved ones) is unacceptable. Why is self-defense wrong? You've got me -- but the goal is to understand her point of view. This is not an attack on that particular viewpoint, but I want to understand, and I've got to learn somewhere. Since I've missed the point (that you apparently understand), I'd like for you to help. :)

So, play the role here. If you subscribed to the doctrine of pacifism that she advocated, what problems would you find with the following:

Assume you come home to find your son being raped.

1) Direct, forceful action is not allowed by your moral code, so you can't stop the assault. You have no option but to try and talk the rapist out of the act he's engaged in.
2) You can't call the police or anyone else for help, because to do so would be to set in action a chain of events that would result in the use of force to end the crisis -- a resolution that your moral code disallows.
3) The attacker, once he finishes (assuming your attempt at educating him is ineffective), is now free to do as he pleases. He can engage in more acts of violence against you and your son (rape you too then kill you both, for instance), or walk away laughing and rape someone else's kid tomorrow night.

You with me so far? Unless I'm totally not understanding her pacifistic doctrine (I wish the general forum was up so I could include a quote here), society would allow evil people to run free -- unpunished and and free to continue doing whatever makes them happy. The only ways to remedy the situation are:

1) Make sure no evil people are born.

or

2) Educate everyone (including those sadistic kids who like to torture cats, and the Stalins and Hitlers of the world) so that they understand the moral righteousness of non-violence.

I don't think history supports either of these doctrines. There have been evil people in the world since Cain, and it seems to me that any doctrine based on their non-existence is doomed to fail. You could suggest purging society of these sorts of people, but then you're resorting to violence again.

I think Kocher was right -- pacifists of this sort like to live by their beliefs until the world comes up and slaps them (see the example above), at which point they demand that society protect them so that they can be allowed to live in peace. And that's the point, I think.

We all want to be left alone to live in peace. Some of us understand the reality that there are bad people out there, and that our only hope of peace is our willingness to oppose evil directly.

Show me the error in my thinking here, please! This is a hard thing for me to understand, but she's not the first one to voice this view. I want to understand it. Help me.

------------------
I stand before Almighty God and I'll say what I have said for years. I will never again soil my responsibility as a voter by voting again for a candidate who turns their back on the fundamental principle of justice by which this nation's freedom lives or dies. --Alan Keyes, 2/2/2000
 
There's no way to understand pacifism because there's nothing there to understand. Pacifism is a fantastical product of contemplation of a subjunctive universe, that is, a universe contrary to fact. Pacifism is a sign of mental illness, because it's a denial of reality. Denying reality is the defining feature of mental illness. It's what makes insanity insane.

It's like trying to convince a mental patient that the cute morning TV weather announcer is NOT televising secret messages of undying love coded as the weather report. There is no way to penetrate such deluded thinking except through serious psychiatric medicine.

Talking with pacifists, as well as most liberals, is a waste of time. You get as much reality from them as from watching a re-run of The A-Team.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 12, 2000).]
 
I have to say that Mr. Kocher has used a term to describe typical pacifists, which i think is quite accurate: schizoid philosophies.

So, pacifism right? Just like the Incas in 1533 when the Spaniard Pizarro, with 200 conquistadors decimated a once great people.



------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
 
Dzeanah, I am planning to respond - this strikes me as a fascinating topic, and I love these sort of discussions. But if it's okay with you I'm going to wait a day or so to see if the general forum reappears, since I'd ideally like to refresh my memory of what Folkbabe said first. (If it doesn't reappear, I'll just try my best to work from memory and supposition!)

--Amp
 
Amp: That's cheating! :D

I will too. I'm trusting my memory here, but I think I'm close to the mark.

I hope we can all learn something more from this. I fear that if we can't learn from each other..... :(

Good discussion so far though!
 
I will defend Folkbabe's right to hold and express her stated beliefs and goals.

I respect the poise under fire demonstrated by her statements and responses. All the more so in light of her very tender age.

I stand by my statement to her that I consider pacifists to be parasites, living free at the expense of the blood shed by those who would insure their freedom.

Without the force of arms by others, pacifists cannot freely pontificate from the podium of pious pomposity. Even Ghandi publicly expressed understanding of this premise.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Pacifist: Misnomer of the worst sort. A Pacifist preaches to retreat or seek the help of others to aid them. Retreat where? The aid of who(m), another Pacifist? And to what result? 2 dead Pacifists? Or more? The doctrine of the Pacifist is to change others, not themselves. Like racism, aggression begins with the face in the mirror. It should also end there.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
I'm going with CRSam here. She can believe whatever she likes.

Ghandi was a pacifist, but hardly a coward. And many medics in American wars have been pacifists. They weren't willing to kill, but they were willing to mop up.

I personally think it's unrealistic, but I guess I think with all the things to be against in the world, pacifism isn't one I'm going to worry about.
 
Pacifism, like so many other things, tends to fail in the application rather than the theory. I have a great deal of respect for true pacifists (i.e. those people who practice complete non-violence, non-conflict, and claim no right to protection from others.) Anyone who chooses to live that kind of lifestyle has my admiration.

However, a pacifistic lifestyle cannot be coerced. You cannot order someone to forego conflict or confrontation. Even attempting to do so fails on so many logical levels that it boggles the mind.

People will make their own life choices. Coercing them into living their life as YOU see fit is immoral in the strongest sense of the word.

Later,
Chris


------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box
 
While I am not a pacifist (actually, I'm a soldier, so I'm about as non-pacifist as you get) I did attend a college run by the Society of Friends - i.e. the famed Quakers, a Christian denomination famous for their pacifism. As a result I think I have a fair insight into pacifism (at least their version of it). I have to say that some of the critisms of pacifism in this thread are, I think, innaccurate and unfair.

Quakers are not pacifists because they are psycho or disfunctional - they are pacifists because they believe that God and Jesus Christ commands Christians to be pacifists. Now without spawing a major theological debate, I think its safe to say that such a veiw is at least supportable with biblical text. Moreover, some of Chritianity's earliest Saints and Martyrs were Roman soldier converts who allowed themselves to be burned, tortured, crucified or thrown to the proverbial lions rather then violate what they perceived as the savior's command to pacifism.

If you look at the history of the friends in this country I think its hard to say that one finds a "parasitical" group of people. The Quakers, with their leader Charles Penn (as in Pennsylvania), fled England seeking religous freedom in the new world. They, without soldiers or police to protect them, pushed deep into the then existing frontiers carving communities out of the wilderness - all on their own. Sometimes they encountered hostile indians who slaugtered the pacifists out of hand, sometimes they encountered hostiles who they were able to convert - either way they, for the most, stuck to their beliefs and drove on. In other words, they were about as self-sufficent as one can be and they did not look to anyone but their God, and their faith in his message, to protect them.

In modern times the Quakers have won fame as medics in armed forces (in the time before medics commonly went armed, most notably in WWI and WWII) - they served, they went in harm's way, but they stayed true to what they believed to be God's command.

All of this is simply to say that, while I am not a pacifist or a Quaker, I think that there are many pacifists who come by their pacifism through honest and deep held faith. Many of them are people of deep faith and great courage, and I respect their choices and their faith.

While I think that we should work hard, politically, to stop that small, but sadly vocal and effective, minority of pacifists who would seek to force us all adopt their outlook, I do think that pacifists, as group, deserve more respect then we seem to be giving them here.

------------------
"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example. . ." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
Back
Top