5 ms·

War mongers also cross the entire political spectrum almost like they're born with a death wish. It's too bad they can't be excised from the system before they

War mongers also cross the entire political spectrum almost like they're born with a death wish. It's too bad they can't be excised from the system before they gain too much power.

hayst4ck 4y ago
I think I am quite liberal and I could be considered a warmonger. If you have never met a truly delusional person in your life, it's easy to have pacifist ideals. As soon as you meet a truly delusional person and those delusions directly conflict with what you need or a right you think you have, you quickly learn that "war" is sometimes the only option. If there are situations that require war, then you must make sure you are capable of exerting force. I think the quote "If you want peace, prepare for war," is quite accurate. It is perceived weakness that opens you up to having war thrust upon you by someone who has estimated they have more power. In that sense, I think pacifism is a warmongering ideology because I view "despots that have too much power will exist" as an axiom upon which any political philosophy must be built. To a despot, pacifism is opportunity to subjugate. The foundation of despotism is built upon people who will not risk what they hold dear. Nuclear annihilation is bad, but I would rather live in a world under threat of nuclear annihilation rather than a world where only Putin or Xi could threaten the force of nuclear weapons to subjugate those they wish.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  I was a pacifist until I read Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," a very long pro-war (warmonger) screed that he consciously designed to counter pre-WWII pacifism in England. Also entertaining. But long. Or perhaps, Tolkein convinced me that I was kidding myself if I thought I was a pacifist, in the first place. If you would break someone's arm to save a million lives, then you're not a pacifist. Which is a sorta kinda okay rough summary of the book's underlying argument.
  - argiopetech 4y ago
  - andrepd 4y ago
    > Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," a very long pro-war (warmonger) screed that he consciously designed to counter pre-WWII pacifism in England This is hilariously off-mark. Tolkien was a very anti-war person (shaped by his experience in the Great War).
    - Nomentatus 4y ago
      Tolkien was an able soldier at the front in WWI. He despised war as veterans do, but by the same token he was obviously no pacifist. He also despised the NAZIs, but was confronted by students, and a nation of voters, who declared themselves uninterested in defending their country or opposing the NAZIs. Tolkein began writing LOTR in 1937. Lewis, very similar views. It is impossible to construe TLOTR as a pacifist work; although it clearly warns against pursuing "any means possible" against an enemy (as is consistent with his Christian faith.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Country_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Country_debate https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/tolkien-lewis-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction.html https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/tolkien-lewis... (I can't vouch for the latter journal, it's just consistent with what I've previously read.) Winston Churchill, in the first volume of his history of WWII, goes into great detail re this ubiquitous democratic feckless pseudo-pacifism of the thirties. This is the context Tolkien was writing against; a thoroughgoing refusal to consider arms. It was well worth opposing, and had armed opposition been used earlier, England would have experienced only a very short, sharp war. "Unlike other members of the "Lost Generation" who spent their words rejecting time-honored concepts such as heroism and virtue, Tolkien and Lewis borrowed heavily from the great epic stories of the past. ... According to the C.S. Lewis Institute, "In the stories of Tolkien and Lewis, there is this very important idea about our responsibility to resist evil and choose to do the right thing, even when it looks very risky. This is what heroes do." Both men learned these lessons while on the battlefields of France during the so-called "War to End All Wars." " https://www.grunge.com/596312/the-c-s-lewis-and-j-r-r-tolkien-relationship-explained/ https://www.grunge.com/596312/the-c-s-lewis-and-j-r-r-tolkie...
  - wsgeorge 4y ago
    > screed I will not use that word to describe The Lord of the Rings
    - Nomentatus 4y ago
      It's hyperbole, no question, but I'm going to say it's kinda sorta justified by the sheer length. Meant to be humorous, but hyperbole is a relatively rare taste in humor.
- godelski 4y ago
  I've met delusional people, but I disagree with your stance. I think there has to be a better way. The reason we go to war is not because these delusional people exist, but because they are able to garner massive support. War can't exist without people willing to die for a cause. Those causes are frequently lies or exaggerations. Or issues caused by autocrats (delusional people) seeking to expand their power. The existential threat to humanity isn't so much that delusional people exist, but that the average person still holds celebrities in high regard. Because we treat men like gods.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    So let’s bring this out of the theoretical realm and into reality. How does this apply to the current Ukraine / Russian war? What is the better way to thwart Russias illegal advance?
    - godelski 4y ago
      First off, I think you're trying to pigeonhole me. I hope you're holding the counter proposal to the same degree of scrutiny. But also recognize that just because someone doesn't have the answer to everything doesn't mean it is wrong (I'll also say that people have been saying the other thing for thousands of years and it has not prevented us from having wars either). Second off, I don't think it can. It's too late already. But I think there are still elements that show the dangers of what I'm saying. Many Russians left the country. There's even some hiding in the woods. I said the danger is when people support mad men. The problem is that despite this, there are still plenty of people willing to fight his war. But what I'm proposing is much harder and longer term. There's lots of unknowns to me. I don't know how you get people to stop worshiping leaders. It seems like it is a fundamental aspect of humanity. I'm just a computer scientist, I don't know everything about human psychology. I'm not an expert in everything, none of us are. But I do know people over simplify things but also hold onto their opinions very strongly. So one aspect is teaching people that their ideas are not part of their identities. Doing this prevents us from taking disagreements personally. I know it means teaching people that you can be proud of your country but that blind nationalism is dangerous. I do know it means teaching people to scrutinize the power of leadership, as power often corrupts and living extremely different lifestyles often distances us. I know it means doing much more than this too. But I'm not sure how to even teach all these things to people. But I do know there are far too many people who do not wish to go to war in either country. So how do you give them the power and prevent charismatic authoritarians from abusing them? I don't know. It is probably similar to the answer of how you prevent people from being in abusive relationships. I'm sure neither of us knows that answer but we both agree that those relationships are bad.
- lurquer 4y ago
  The delusion, perhaps, is the average person worrying about whether they are or are not, or should or should not be, a pacifist. It doesn’t matter. Wars are waged by powerful interests over which the average person has no control. I suppose on a personal level — confronted with a mugger or burglar — one could implement one’s philosophy. Thankfully, though, those occasions are rare and regardless of one’s outlook, the decision in the moment is based less on philosophy and more on adrenaline, panic, fear, rage, etc. (which can lead a ‘warmonger’ to capitulate and cower in fear or a ‘pacifist’ the knock the crap out of someone… one never knows.) If there are any dictators, emperors, prime minister, or presidents on this board, perhaps their musings on the subject would mean something. If not, it’s just navel-gazing.
- data_maan 4y ago
  In other words: You'd rather die (and have also all your children die) than live under Putin or Xi. Are you sure about that? Dictators come and go, nuclear winter stays.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Not the parent, but yes absolutely. If I can’t speak out against things I don’t like then I am not living. You can hole up and wait out the nuke tossing then join the workers party rebuilding their palaces after you come out. Your children will likely be forced into labor as well, that’s Poohbears favorite move.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    Definitely. "Live free or die" means more than anything, that if no one will sacrifice themselves in the fight for justice, then you will be oppressed, your family will be oppressed, and your children will be oppressed as will your friends and their families. If everyone believes in the idea of "live free or die" then there is a chance to not live and die a slave to a dictator. I prefer living to life. I was extremely moved by the Hong Kong protestors who were living the morals of my forefathers, while my peers here in America were busy bootlicking while talking about how awesome their freedom to lick boots is. This quote is the parent quote of "live free or die": > "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" It captures the idea clearly.
    - data_maan 4y ago
      I on the other hand met in person someone from Hong Kong whose uncle, I believe, had been imprisoned during a much earlier demonstration for a different cause. He didn't exclaim any morally high-flying attitude and said that after the demonstration was over and he was in jail, no public really remembered him, the news didn't write great stories about his heroic deeds and he suffered tremendously as a small cog caught between the wheels of history. You're attitude also reminds me strongly of pre-world-war Germany where there was also a sentiment that a war with the unjust oppressors is much better than the current rotten piece; you can see where this has lead. Ending, I don't what to dismiss your positive attitude to oush against oppression, but I want show that there is more to the issue than "live free or don't live at all". So what you say sounds great - in theory. But letting Mike Tyson answer: "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face".
toss1 4y ago
War mongers is a dangerous oversimplification. The basic problem in the world is that while a majority of the people may want to live self-determined lives, and be governed by a self-ruling democracy, there is a significant minority who wants to, at a personal level steal, extort, or extract value from others, and at a societal/governmental level rule over others. The latter are perfectly happy to steal, extort, extract, and/or rule over others using deception and violence. If the people who want to live free and self-determined lives and under self-determining governments are not better prepared and better armed than the bullies, thieves, and authoritarians, they WILL be ruled by those bullies, thieves, and authoritarians. If someone comes to your home to steal, rape, rule, or otherwise harm you or your family, is your response to say "sure, do what you want", or will you defend yourself? Will you not call the cops if you have a chance because they might use violence to subdue or even kill your assailants (because they'd be doing violence on your behalf)? If you defend yourself, or call the cops to do so, are you a warmonger? If someone attacks our land and people, or a neighbor's land and people, and we call the military to defend ourselves, are we warmongers? It is a useless accusation that undermines real understanding of what is happening.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Yes, self-defense is a legitimate use of violence. Is there any other point at all in this thread? When people say they are "anti-war" or "pacifist", they do not mean anti-self-defense. This kind of rethoric is uninteresting. (Case in point: I am anti-war and I voted in favour of sending military aid to Ukraine and adoptions sanctions over Russia)
  - toss1 4y ago
    >>Yes, self-defense is a legitimate use of violence. Is there any other point at all in this thread? Yes, there is another point. Many people, simply refer to all parties as "warmongers". The "warmonger" accusation is thrown every day at the people, politicians, and countries sending arms to Ukraine. Some of this can be attribute to Active Measures Dezinformatsiya "shaping the information space" directly from Russia and some to useful idiots who parrot the same lines, but not all of it. I've encountered many, like the OP, who just talk about any person or country in a position to project violent power, as a "warmonger" if they suggest using that power. There are also many people who will claim that the USA is a "warmonger nation", far worse than Russia and China. While the USA has started military action since WWII, and some of it erroneously, it is NOT the USA that is "warmongering" in any way equivalent to the expansionist states Russia and China, both of whom have a continuous history of "annexing" neighbors (Tibet, HongKong, South China Sea, East China Sea, etc. & Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine), while the US has certainly behaved as the worlds policeman (and sometimes over-aggressively), it has not annexed anyone. Yet, there is plenty of "warmongering" rhetoric thrown at the USA, including in it's support of Ukraine, and claims that it is worse than CCP and Russian Federation. So, what we need to distinguish is who is the expansionist aggressor, and who is the we hope better prepared and better armed democracy. (That said, if a better-armed democracy tips over into an autocracy, watch out. and make no mistake, there are strong movements in the USA that are attempting to do exactly that, starting with actions to undermine democracy such as undermining the independent judiciary, denying elections, etc.) EDIT: Plus, people are happy to prattle on about how the US Defense Budget exceeds the next X nations combined budgets, and how it is such a "warmonger" state. Yet when it finally becomes seen that we need to literally push back against Russia or China and defend democracy itself, it's pretty handy how all that turns out to be the "Arsenal Of Democracy" and we can actually supply the effort without breaking much of a sweat. And then people who normally call the US a "warmongering nation" can happily say "I'm all for defending countries"... So, the main point is that I'm calling out the inconsistency inherent in the "warmonger" labeling.

War mongers also cross the entire political spectrum almost like they're born with a death wish. It's too bad they can't be excised from the system before they gain too much power.

hayst4ck 4y ago

I think I am quite liberal and I could be considered a warmonger. If you have never met a truly delusional person in your life, it's easy to have pacifist ideals. As soon as you meet a truly delusional person and those delusions directly conflict with what you need or a right you think you have, you quickly learn that "war" is sometimes the only option. If there are situations that require war, then you must make sure you are capable of exerting force. I think the quote "If you want peace, prepare for war," is quite accurate. It is perceived weakness that opens you up to having war thrust upon you by someone who has estimated they have more power. In that sense, I think pacifism is a warmongering ideology because I view "despots that have too much power will exist" as an axiom upon which any political philosophy must be built. To a despot, pacifism is opportunity to subjugate. The foundation of despotism is built upon people who will not risk what they hold dear. Nuclear annihilation is bad, but I would rather live in a world under threat of nuclear annihilation rather than a world where only Putin or Xi could threaten the force of nuclear weapons to subjugate those they wish.

Nomentatus 4y ago
I was a pacifist until I read Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," a very long pro-war (warmonger) screed that he consciously designed to counter pre-WWII pacifism in England. Also entertaining. But long. Or perhaps, Tolkein convinced me that I was kidding myself if I thought I was a pacifist, in the first place. If you would break someone's arm to save a million lives, then you're not a pacifist. Which is a sorta kinda okay rough summary of the book's underlying argument.
- argiopetech 4y ago
- andrepd 4y ago
  > Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," a very long pro-war (warmonger) screed that he consciously designed to counter pre-WWII pacifism in England This is hilariously off-mark. Tolkien was a very anti-war person (shaped by his experience in the Great War).
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    Tolkien was an able soldier at the front in WWI. He despised war as veterans do, but by the same token he was obviously no pacifist. He also despised the NAZIs, but was confronted by students, and a nation of voters, who declared themselves uninterested in defending their country or opposing the NAZIs. Tolkein began writing LOTR in 1937. Lewis, very similar views. It is impossible to construe TLOTR as a pacifist work; although it clearly warns against pursuing "any means possible" against an enemy (as is consistent with his Christian faith.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Country_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Country_debate https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/tolkien-lewis-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction.html https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/tolkien-lewis... (I can't vouch for the latter journal, it's just consistent with what I've previously read.) Winston Churchill, in the first volume of his history of WWII, goes into great detail re this ubiquitous democratic feckless pseudo-pacifism of the thirties. This is the context Tolkien was writing against; a thoroughgoing refusal to consider arms. It was well worth opposing, and had armed opposition been used earlier, England would have experienced only a very short, sharp war. "Unlike other members of the "Lost Generation" who spent their words rejecting time-honored concepts such as heroism and virtue, Tolkien and Lewis borrowed heavily from the great epic stories of the past. ... According to the C.S. Lewis Institute, "In the stories of Tolkien and Lewis, there is this very important idea about our responsibility to resist evil and choose to do the right thing, even when it looks very risky. This is what heroes do." Both men learned these lessons while on the battlefields of France during the so-called "War to End All Wars." " https://www.grunge.com/596312/the-c-s-lewis-and-j-r-r-tolkien-relationship-explained/ https://www.grunge.com/596312/the-c-s-lewis-and-j-r-r-tolkie...
- wsgeorge 4y ago
  > screed I will not use that word to describe The Lord of the Rings
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    It's hyperbole, no question, but I'm going to say it's kinda sorta justified by the sheer length. Meant to be humorous, but hyperbole is a relatively rare taste in humor.
godelski 4y ago
I've met delusional people, but I disagree with your stance. I think there has to be a better way. The reason we go to war is not because these delusional people exist, but because they are able to garner massive support. War can't exist without people willing to die for a cause. Those causes are frequently lies or exaggerations. Or issues caused by autocrats (delusional people) seeking to expand their power. The existential threat to humanity isn't so much that delusional people exist, but that the average person still holds celebrities in high regard. Because we treat men like gods.
- tekknik 4y ago
  So let’s bring this out of the theoretical realm and into reality. How does this apply to the current Ukraine / Russian war? What is the better way to thwart Russias illegal advance?
  - godelski 4y ago
    First off, I think you're trying to pigeonhole me. I hope you're holding the counter proposal to the same degree of scrutiny. But also recognize that just because someone doesn't have the answer to everything doesn't mean it is wrong (I'll also say that people have been saying the other thing for thousands of years and it has not prevented us from having wars either). Second off, I don't think it can. It's too late already. But I think there are still elements that show the dangers of what I'm saying. Many Russians left the country. There's even some hiding in the woods. I said the danger is when people support mad men. The problem is that despite this, there are still plenty of people willing to fight his war. But what I'm proposing is much harder and longer term. There's lots of unknowns to me. I don't know how you get people to stop worshiping leaders. It seems like it is a fundamental aspect of humanity. I'm just a computer scientist, I don't know everything about human psychology. I'm not an expert in everything, none of us are. But I do know people over simplify things but also hold onto their opinions very strongly. So one aspect is teaching people that their ideas are not part of their identities. Doing this prevents us from taking disagreements personally. I know it means teaching people that you can be proud of your country but that blind nationalism is dangerous. I do know it means teaching people to scrutinize the power of leadership, as power often corrupts and living extremely different lifestyles often distances us. I know it means doing much more than this too. But I'm not sure how to even teach all these things to people. But I do know there are far too many people who do not wish to go to war in either country. So how do you give them the power and prevent charismatic authoritarians from abusing them? I don't know. It is probably similar to the answer of how you prevent people from being in abusive relationships. I'm sure neither of us knows that answer but we both agree that those relationships are bad.
lurquer 4y ago
The delusion, perhaps, is the average person worrying about whether they are or are not, or should or should not be, a pacifist. It doesn’t matter. Wars are waged by powerful interests over which the average person has no control. I suppose on a personal level — confronted with a mugger or burglar — one could implement one’s philosophy. Thankfully, though, those occasions are rare and regardless of one’s outlook, the decision in the moment is based less on philosophy and more on adrenaline, panic, fear, rage, etc. (which can lead a ‘warmonger’ to capitulate and cower in fear or a ‘pacifist’ the knock the crap out of someone… one never knows.) If there are any dictators, emperors, prime minister, or presidents on this board, perhaps their musings on the subject would mean something. If not, it’s just navel-gazing.
data_maan 4y ago
In other words: You'd rather die (and have also all your children die) than live under Putin or Xi. Are you sure about that? Dictators come and go, nuclear winter stays.
- tekknik 4y ago
  Not the parent, but yes absolutely. If I can’t speak out against things I don’t like then I am not living. You can hole up and wait out the nuke tossing then join the workers party rebuilding their palaces after you come out. Your children will likely be forced into labor as well, that’s Poohbears favorite move.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  Definitely. "Live free or die" means more than anything, that if no one will sacrifice themselves in the fight for justice, then you will be oppressed, your family will be oppressed, and your children will be oppressed as will your friends and their families. If everyone believes in the idea of "live free or die" then there is a chance to not live and die a slave to a dictator. I prefer living to life. I was extremely moved by the Hong Kong protestors who were living the morals of my forefathers, while my peers here in America were busy bootlicking while talking about how awesome their freedom to lick boots is. This quote is the parent quote of "live free or die": > "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" It captures the idea clearly.
  - data_maan 4y ago
    I on the other hand met in person someone from Hong Kong whose uncle, I believe, had been imprisoned during a much earlier demonstration for a different cause. He didn't exclaim any morally high-flying attitude and said that after the demonstration was over and he was in jail, no public really remembered him, the news didn't write great stories about his heroic deeds and he suffered tremendously as a small cog caught between the wheels of history. You're attitude also reminds me strongly of pre-world-war Germany where there was also a sentiment that a war with the unjust oppressors is much better than the current rotten piece; you can see where this has lead. Ending, I don't what to dismiss your positive attitude to oush against oppression, but I want show that there is more to the issue than "live free or don't live at all". So what you say sounds great - in theory. But letting Mike Tyson answer: "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face".

toss1 4y ago

War mongers is a dangerous oversimplification. The basic problem in the world is that while a majority of the people may want to live self-determined lives, and be governed by a self-ruling democracy, there is a significant minority who wants to, at a personal level steal, extort, or extract value from others, and at a societal/governmental level rule over others. The latter are perfectly happy to steal, extort, extract, and/or rule over others using deception and violence. If the people who want to live free and self-determined lives and under self-determining governments are not better prepared and better armed than the bullies, thieves, and authoritarians, they WILL be ruled by those bullies, thieves, and authoritarians. If someone comes to your home to steal, rape, rule, or otherwise harm you or your family, is your response to say "sure, do what you want", or will you defend yourself? Will you not call the cops if you have a chance because they might use violence to subdue or even kill your assailants (because they'd be doing violence on your behalf)? If you defend yourself, or call the cops to do so, are you a warmonger? If someone attacks our land and people, or a neighbor's land and people, and we call the military to defend ourselves, are we warmongers? It is a useless accusation that undermines real understanding of what is happening.

andrepd 4y ago
Yes, self-defense is a legitimate use of violence. Is there any other point at all in this thread? When people say they are "anti-war" or "pacifist", they do not mean anti-self-defense. This kind of rethoric is uninteresting. (Case in point: I am anti-war and I voted in favour of sending military aid to Ukraine and adoptions sanctions over Russia)
- toss1 4y ago
  >>Yes, self-defense is a legitimate use of violence. Is there any other point at all in this thread? Yes, there is another point. Many people, simply refer to all parties as "warmongers". The "warmonger" accusation is thrown every day at the people, politicians, and countries sending arms to Ukraine. Some of this can be attribute to Active Measures Dezinformatsiya "shaping the information space" directly from Russia and some to useful idiots who parrot the same lines, but not all of it. I've encountered many, like the OP, who just talk about any person or country in a position to project violent power, as a "warmonger" if they suggest using that power. There are also many people who will claim that the USA is a "warmonger nation", far worse than Russia and China. While the USA has started military action since WWII, and some of it erroneously, it is NOT the USA that is "warmongering" in any way equivalent to the expansionist states Russia and China, both of whom have a continuous history of "annexing" neighbors (Tibet, HongKong, South China Sea, East China Sea, etc. & Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine), while the US has certainly behaved as the worlds policeman (and sometimes over-aggressively), it has not annexed anyone. Yet, there is plenty of "warmongering" rhetoric thrown at the USA, including in it's support of Ukraine, and claims that it is worse than CCP and Russian Federation. So, what we need to distinguish is who is the expansionist aggressor, and who is the we hope better prepared and better armed democracy. (That said, if a better-armed democracy tips over into an autocracy, watch out. and make no mistake, there are strong movements in the USA that are attempting to do exactly that, starting with actions to undermine democracy such as undermining the independent judiciary, denying elections, etc.) EDIT: Plus, people are happy to prattle on about how the US Defense Budget exceeds the next X nations combined budgets, and how it is such a "warmonger" state. Yet when it finally becomes seen that we need to literally push back against Russia or China and defend democracy itself, it's pretty handy how all that turns out to be the "Arsenal Of Democracy" and we can actually supply the effort without breaking much of a sweat. And then people who normally call the US a "warmongering nation" can happily say "I'm all for defending countries"... So, the main point is that I'm calling out the inconsistency inherent in the "warmonger" labeling.