4 ms·

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of operation condor? project mkultra? As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win (= survive as a cult

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of operation condor? project mkultra? As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win (= survive as a culture against encroachment from different cultures) without violence. Today's mantra of pacifism and non-violence is just propaganda from current governments (all of which were originally installed through bloodshed, and kept in power through never-ending bloodshed) to keep the masses impotent and avoid being toppled like their predecessors

Supermancho 3y ago
Violence one of the most effective means of motivation, known to man; second only to shame. Nonviolent change (toward peace)is somewhere down the imaginary page, but it can be effective. It is both less timely and long lasting.
kneebonian 3y ago
Interesting you mention MKUltra as one of the reasons claimed for Teds "extreme" personality is because he was unwillingly drafted into and forced to participate in MkUltra.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  I had no idea that he may have been part of MKUltra. Thanks for that rabbit hole! As I’m reading through The Devil’s Chessboard (recommend a few weeks ago in another thread) I’m increasingly despondent about the “people”’s role in the US (i.e. we are now just chattel for the ruling class), and I haven’t even gotten to MKUltra yet!
FpUser 3y ago
>"and avoid being toppled like their predecessors" Ok. You topple one. If you do not create a replacement government you will have people preyed upon by violent gangs when eventually one become powerful enough to form new government. And if you do you are back to square one. So maybe it is better to try to fix what you have while trying to avoid violence. I am not telling it is always possible but at least it can be a goal.
ip26 3y ago
As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win without violence The threat of violence can be both effective and nonviolent. Every battle is won before it is ever fought- and by corollary, it is possible to win without ever having fought.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  Heh. When I think of "nonviolence" I think of Gandhi and MLK. Maybe I should really be thinking about Edward Teller and the RAND corporation? I'm not sure who would define "orthodox" nonviolence (ahimsa) -- maybe Mahavira? -- but whichever definition we chose, I suspect it would differ from yours on the subject of threats. Not that you're wrong, necessarily. But you can't play by only bluffing, can you? In optimal (say) poker play, the different actions, including what amounts to bluffing, are all chosen with some probability (a "mixed strategy"), fundamentally at random.
tsimionescu 3y ago
> As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win (= survive as a culture against encroachment from different cultures) without violence. Have you ever read Jewish history? That's a culture that has survived for millenia, without perpetrating virtually any violence between the time they were exiled from Israel and the time they took over Palestine, while facing constant discrimination and violence against them. Not to mention that their culture set the foundations of the two biggest religions on Earth today.

Supermancho 3y ago

Violence one of the most effective means of motivation, known to man; second only to shame. Nonviolent change (toward peace)is somewhere down the imaginary page, but it can be effective. It is both less timely and long lasting.

kneebonian 3y ago

Interesting you mention MKUltra as one of the reasons claimed for Teds "extreme" personality is because he was unwillingly drafted into and forced to participate in MkUltra.

jonhohle 3y ago
I had no idea that he may have been part of MKUltra. Thanks for that rabbit hole! As I’m reading through The Devil’s Chessboard (recommend a few weeks ago in another thread) I’m increasingly despondent about the “people”’s role in the US (i.e. we are now just chattel for the ruling class), and I haven’t even gotten to MKUltra yet!

FpUser 3y ago

>"and avoid being toppled like their predecessors" Ok. You topple one. If you do not create a replacement government you will have people preyed upon by violent gangs when eventually one become powerful enough to form new government. And if you do you are back to square one. So maybe it is better to try to fix what you have while trying to avoid violence. I am not telling it is always possible but at least it can be a goal.

ip26 3y ago

As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win without violence The threat of violence can be both effective and nonviolent. Every battle is won before it is ever fought- and by corollary, it is possible to win without ever having fought.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
Heh. When I think of "nonviolence" I think of Gandhi and MLK. Maybe I should really be thinking about Edward Teller and the RAND corporation? I'm not sure who would define "orthodox" nonviolence (ahimsa) -- maybe Mahavira? -- but whichever definition we chose, I suspect it would differ from yours on the subject of threats. Not that you're wrong, necessarily. But you can't play by only bluffing, can you? In optimal (say) poker play, the different actions, including what amounts to bluffing, are all chosen with some probability (a "mixed strategy"), fundamentally at random.

tsimionescu 3y ago

> As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win (= survive as a culture against encroachment from different cultures) without violence. Have you ever read Jewish history? That's a culture that has survived for millenia, without perpetrating virtually any violence between the time they were exiled from Israel and the time they took over Palestine, while facing constant discrimination and violence against them. Not to mention that their culture set the foundations of the two biggest religions on Earth today.