Buddhism a la surprise

[Skybird]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Non-violence_cant_tackle_terror_Dalai_/articleshow/3995810.cms

Non-violence can't tackle terror

18 Jan 2009, 0451 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.

He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.

He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.

[Letum]

If it can't be tackled with out violence, then it can't be tackled at all in the long run.
Fortunately for all, H.H. the D.L. is certainly not infallible.

[Rockstar]

I met the Dalai Lama once, the late 90s. I had my preconcieved notions about him which were quite contrary to my thoughts of him now. Shipmates were waiting for me to make a spectacle out of the event. He, a relatively short man dressed in robes, I being 6'-4" and then as many would tell you somewhat intimidating in size and manners. When he came up to me he looked as is if he was about to climb a mountain. I looked down thinking to say something colorful and get a laugh at his expense.

We took one anothers hand and looked at each other. Just then he let loose with the biggest most geniune smile I had ever seen on anyone in my life which in turn brought the same from me. There was a certain strength in him, in his arms, in his grip and a hardness I thought from having seen too much in life. I thought how can I hate this man he is so kind I am glad to have met him.

I don't agree with his beliefs I wish I could have spoke to him in peace and love with what I now know of Mashiach. But I don't hate the guy for it, that word 'hate' today unfortunetly it is all too common place.

Whats so hard or surprising to say you love someone you've never met why is it so difficult for so many? By 'stunning' the audience like he did with those words I wonder how close they must be to being like them who attacked Mumbai.

[Skybird]

If it can't be tackled with out violence, then it can't be tackled at all in the long run.
Fortunately for all, H.H. the D.L. is certainly not infallible.
Neither are you. ;)
Let there be nobody mistaken, that the use of force probably has brought more ends to bad things, and has helped more good things in man's evolution to emerge than mere philosphies and good intentions alone. As Thomas Mann said: "Tolerance of evil is a crime", and it never leads to anything different than this: tolerating evil. the dalai Lama said "their minds are closed." I assume he means the same thing like me when saying they are blind by mind and heart. Such people you can't reach with reasons and arguments or intentions. you stop them and hinder them to carry on with all means needed to acchieve that effect, or they carry on. Simply that. As the Dalai Lama also is quoted to have said some years ago: "If somebody has a rifle and starts shooting at you, eventually it may be a good idea to pick up a rifle yourself and start shooting back." Call it pragmatic pedagogics.

I met the Dalai Lama once, the late 90s. I had my preconcieved notions about him which were quite contrary to my thoughts of him now. Shipmates were waiting for me to make a spectacle out of the event. He, a relatively short man dressed in robes, I being 6'-4" and then as many would tell you somewhat intimidating in size and manners. When he came up to me he looked as is if he was about to climb a mountain. I looked down thinking to say something colorful and get a laugh at his expense.

We took one anothers hand and looked at each other. Just then he let loose with the biggest most geniune smile I had ever seen on anyone in my life which in turn brought the same from me. There was a certain strength in him, in his arms, in his grip and a hardness I thought from having seen too much in life. I thought how can I hate this man he is so kind I am glad to have met him.

I don't agree with his beliefs I wish I could have spoke to him in peace and love with what I now know of Mashiach. But I don't hate the guy for it, that word 'hate' today unfortunetly it is all too common place.

Whats so hard or surprising to say you love someone you've never met why is it so difficult for so many? By 'stunning' the audience like he did with those words I wonder how close they must be to being like them who attacked Mumbai.

I understand what you mean. I also once met him, in the early 90s, and beside him several other Lamas as well. I am not completely overthrown and enthusiastic about him, that simply is not in my stoic cold temper, but surely one needs to be already dead in order to not realise that there is something special around this man, and that he means it straight, open and honest, whatever it is. If more leaders of peoples in the world would be like that, this world would be a better place, no doubt. Unfortunately, we need to deal with the world as it is - and it lacks such leaders. We only know that we could desperately need them, to learn by their example.

[Stealth Hunter]

I would sooner convert to Buddhism than any other religion, though. I like their philosophy of peace, enlightenment, and tapping in with your surroundings.

[Skybird]

I would sooner convert to Buddhism than any other religion, though. I like their philosophy of peace, enlightenment, and tapping in with your surroundings.
Converting to it makes little sense, since converting to it has no real meaning for you or anybody else and will help you nothing. Of course there are many schools and sects and lineages you can gain membership in, and they have ceremonies and rituals like other religions, but all that has nothing to do with what Buddha wanted to point at, at best it teaches you over time what "it" is not. You already have one head on your shoulders, and you don't need somebody else's head put on top of it, not even Buddha's, so use what you've already been given. All what you will ever need you already have.

Learn about and then check for yourself with reason and logic the basic ideas of Siddharta's reasoning and argument. What you find convincing in your analysis and find to be of good for you and others, and not being at the cost of anybody else - keep that and live by it. Doing so is a thousand times better than practicing rituals and "spiritual practices". If you do so, the rest will come by itself. There is no enlightenment you could "gain". Free your mind from images and conceptions. Stop worrying about whether you want to "convert" to Buddhism or not. It is totally unimportant and will give you nothing, and the question can only hinder you. Leave it behind like the steps of the stairs behind you - you hardly give them any second thought, do you.

Stop searching for something, and don't yearn for it outside yourself. That's the essence of Buddhist practice, really, and it is quite simple: awareness. But people do not believe that and start to hassle around. Not before then life become's complicated and mind gets upset. Ideas raise, theories and and clever thoughts, arguments are given and counter-arguments appear - clearness leaves, confusion reigns.

Best way to clear a muddy water is not trying to clear it - but to let it be.

[Letum]

Let there be nobody mistaken, that the use of force probably has brought more ends to bad things, and has helped more good things in man's evolution to emerge than mere philosphies and good intentions alone.

Shall we compare the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of violent
force is common place with the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of
violent force is rare?

It is a culture of peace, rather than the domination of enemies via force, that produces
lasting peace.

There are many hundreds of times fewer violent deaths, illnesses, famines, disasters,
wars, genocides etc. now than there where 2000 years ago. This is not because we
use more force now, but because of medicine, modern farming, law, government and
other such "mere philosophies and good intentions".

[Skybird]

Shall we compare the numbers of revolutions, violent uprises and wars being fought against "evil" with where the world would be today if they would not have been fought, not to mention: would have been lost? Should we consider the number of tyrants and dicators who had been driven out by force, barbaric ideologies overcome by violent resistance, and the power monopoles of some and abuse of these broken with brute force?

Peaceful revolutions are a relatively young phenomenon, and not many examples are to be given. Wars have had a tremendous influence in shaping the world we currently have. Also in shaping our today's freedoms, and local peace.

Freedom is no natural right by birth, but a conseqeunce of action. Freedom needs to be fought for, and needs to be defended, if needed by force. He who is not willing to fight for freedom, his or that of his children, does not deserve freedom, for he does not esteem it. Such is a man who carelessly throws it away and does not see the loss, and minimises it.

And let's face it - Ghandi only is a name in the history book because he confronted the British, and the British Empire after all - and despite undeniable excesses - all in all was a relatively civilised power that I rate much higher in reputation than it is en vogue today. If Ghandi would have had to deal with Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Third Reich, with Tamerlan'S kingdom or the Mongoles, we would not even know today that he ever had existed, for already his first pacifistic rally would have been shot or hacked into bloody pieces.

[Letum]

Indeed. He would have been hacked to death by any government that viewed the use
of force as the best means of solving a problem.

It's a jolly good thing the British Empire where not as keen on force and violence as
you seam to be.

All revolutions; violent or non-violent, good or bad, have at their core a popular
ideology or philosophy that moves the population as one. No small minority in power
can resist the will of the majority then the majority act as one either violently or
peacefully.

Peaceful revolutions happen several times a year in Europe and have done for
quite a while now.
Being peaceful by nature, so very effective and common place, perhaps you don't
notice them for what they are anymore, but revolutions they are. They could be done
violently, but it is a good thing they are not!

I believe the next one in the UK will happen some time this year, although it is yet to
be announced.

[OneToughHerring]

Doesn't surprise me one bit that the Dalai Lama was very friendly with Dubya. Afterall, the US did exact a bloody vengeance on Afghanistan for the Talibans blowing up Buddha-statues. Not exactly 'non-violent', not sure how the Dalai Lama defends the whole thing with 'extraordinary renditions' etc.

I agree with Skybird about Buddhism being just a religion among others. Nothing else, nothing more. Just another fairytale among many others.

But to think that the British colonial empire was somehow 'kinder' than Stalin's Soviet...I don't exactly get that comparison. And this coming from someone who's both grandfathers fought against the Soviets in WW2. First of all it's comparing apples to oranges. Secondly, the cruelty of British colonialism lie in their special brand of colonial politics that, read very carefully, is still continuing. So until the British colonialism lay in it's grave I won't be making any final conclusions about their 'kindness'.

[Skybird]

The presence of British colonialism caused violence, yes - but all too often it ended in even more violence between tribes in Africa. It brought rudimentary basics - and often quite some more - of humanism, civilisation and education to quite some hellholes of blossoming barbarism and places of constant bloodshed. It taught people the basics of administration and maintaining a public society where before people spend their time with trying to kill each other with clubs and axes.

To compare it with Stalin's tyranny, is the most absurd thing I've red in this board for one or two weeks. which means it is really quite absurd. The British Empire was Light and Shadow, in in many places it was more light than shadow. Stalinism only was deepest darkness. Is there any civilisational benefit you would see in it? Hardly. with estimations of victims killed by Stalinism ranging from 20 to 40 millions, it would need courage to claim that.

Also, i would not even rate buddhism (the essentials of it, ignoring the sects and school'S institutional businesses) a religion, nor a belief. It does not tell you fairy tale stuff to believe. It hints you to the need to examine your mind - and by that, learn and find out about yourself, your own true nature. Buddha insisted on you testing and examining stuff all by yourself, by reason and logic and common sense and analysis. He cautioned you to not just "believe", he even cautioned you against believing in his own words, but to test them. Test it yourself, keep what convinces you after you examined it by reason and logic, and live by it if you found it to be of good for you and for others, and not being at the cost of others. There is no stuff to "believe" in buddhist thinking. Believing and buddhist thinking are mutually exclusive. Buddhist schools may tell you to believe their rite and rituals, your Lama, your teacher, or to believe in Dhakas and dhakinis and mantras and whatever, and here you touch the fact that many of them - imo in ignorration of basic principles of Siddharta's way of thinking - indeed behave like the Christian church does. but both are raising these false impressions of their religion for reasons of material and powerpolitical self-interest. religious institutions are not interested in your interest to get free. They are interested to make you support their political interests and their material existence - and that means for you to give up your freedom. forget them, no matter whether you call yourself Buddhist or Christian or whatever. If you meet buddha, kill buddha. If you meet Jesus, slay him. You have holy scriptures - burn them. There comes Muhammad - shoot him. Buddha is a state of self-knowledge in your mind. The kingdom of heaven is a state of mental evolution. Only "what is" will set you free.



Letum,

obviously you mean the term revolution metaphorically when you really think there are several ones every year. I mean the term in the more historic meaning of events like the French or american or Russian or Chinese revolution, and that means: a violent overthrowing of an established order, violent so that nothing of the old order shall remain and be given the chance to reestablish itself again later - that'S why revolutions tend to be so bloody. Exceptions to this rule are for example the peaceful overthrowing of the government in the GDR in 1989.

And your reply to Ghandi just states the obvious and confirms my argument. It means that he would have been ineffective with damn many nations and societies on this planet, from the contemporary and obviously barbaric Saudi to the apparently more civilised Chinese, from the corrupt despots of Kongo to the jihaddi djanjaweed in Darfhur or any Talebna-formed government like you had it in Afghanistan before. In Kongo alone you would have saved 7 million lives by now if the world wpould have willed to intervene by force, and over 1 million in Darfhur have been killed due to lacking efficient military action. On the other hand, substracting those 6 millions murdered in the camps, the 6 million killed Germans who for the most happened to have been born on the wrong side of borders, those 40+ million people who died in WWII, died for the freedom you know enjoy and that allows you to argue that only peaceful means could overcome terrorist violence and violence shall never be used. Had that attitude been the norm with leaders of the Allies, for your unconditional pacifist views you maybe would sit in a concentration camp yourself today. And do you really believe that working there would set you free just because the slogan over the gate of Auschwitz said so?

Face it, this world has plenty of beasts with claws and teeth, and sometimes it'S the lesser harm to kill the other than to accept him committing his own killing spree. The Khmer Rouge as a reminder. The Skull Towers Islamic conquerors built in Northern Africa. The many, many genocides taking place in Africa - and who temporarily interrupted during the British ruling, and broke out again after the British had left. Not always such conflicts arise from artificial border-drawing on maps that lead to failed states like Irak. I do not mind (and I do not care) whether there are "just wars", all I know is that there are wars of needs and wars of choice. The first should not be avoided, the last better should. Even if following Buddhist thinking to major parts and considering karma and all that, I have no problem and see no evil in eventually killing by my own hands. The critical questions are: for what reason, and in what state of mind and emotional condition. Unlimited pacifism - is one of the most inhumance and uninterested factors in human history, causing an incredibly load of horror and suffering to continue. and there is neither peace of mind nor a superior humane argument to be found in that attitude. It just is carelessness and dsinterest, taking itself as more important than to engage in trying to stop such events going on. You must neither convince nor argue with for example terrorists, or barbars. You ust make them stop without giving them reward for their being what they are. That is good enough. That is what decides on whose side you really are. Reason only convinces you still is open to reason. Many are not.

[OneToughHerring]

The presence of British colonialism caused violence, yes - but it ended even more violence between tribes in Africa. It brought rudimentary basics - and often quite some more - of humanism, civilisation and education to quite some hellholes of blossoming barbarism and places of constant bloodshed. It taught people the basics of administration and maintaining a public society where before people spend their time with trying to kill each other with clubs and axes.

To compare it with Stalin's tyranny, is the most absurd thing I've red in this board for one or two weeks. which means it is really quite absurd. The British Empire was Light and Shadow, in in many places it was more light than shadow. Stalinism only was deepest darkness.
You use a lot of emotive words where there really is no need for any. Barbarism? Light? Darkness? :)

The British empire has had a constant presence in Africa for centuries. It continues it's presence there through economical systems that allow for example the mining companies to continue where the colonial governments left off. In essence nothing has really changed since the 1960's and -70's when most African former colonies began to get their so called independence. When the Soviets and also GDR tried to set up trade unions in African nations the trade unionists were murdered with help from CIA. I guess that's one example of 'civilisation'. We have trade unions in the west, why can't Africa have them?

But it's somehow interesting that a German should be so adamant about defending the British empire. I mean, it was the Brits, the 'Tommies', who took such great delight in bombing places like Dresden, testing the principles of 'fire storm' and napalm use against civilians. I'm sure this further endeared them to you?

See I've always had this theory that even if Germany was Britain's enemy during WW 2, the weren't complete enemies. Hitler admired the British royalty. The Soviets were the principal target and 'race enemy' of the Nazi-Germany. The British were even respected and hence no real attempt was made to conquer the British isles. As we know, u-boat war was waged but unfortunately u-boats can't conquer lands.

edit. And you can spare the new age-buddhist bull****, I'm not prone to believing that stuff. They brainwash kids to be their monks, why don't allow the kids to grow up into adulthood and then make up their minds about whether to become monks or not? It's just a religion, no better then, say, Scientology. Actually it's worse cause it has more members.

[Skybird]

You might be surprised at the low level of hard feelings in Germany for the bombings of cities, maybe that is because people here know that the bombing of cities has been started by Germany, and that the war has been started by germany as well. Was it pleasant to experience Dresden and Hamburg? Hardly. Was it a necessity to have this war against Hitler nevertheless? Absolutely.

The theory on the British empire carrying on to exist in contemporary trade systems, is not new, to some degree I agree, to some not. There is a parallel, an Anglosaxon version, to the conspiration theory called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. the Anglosaxon version says that Roosevelt only entered the war in order to have america take over rulership fromt he disappearing British empire in order to ensure ongoing anglosaxon world dominance in close cooperation and coordination with the British. Usually this theory is widespread amongst Russians, and the European left. But I think today's global trade structures may have been helped to form by the trade system of the British empire, but nevertheles are mostly caused by the scientific, technological, administrative and legal superiority of Europe one and two hundred years ago. And to the degree others have copied these very items items that once founded european superiority, the others became equals in power and the West gets under pressure, often in kind of boomerang effects (like this thing called "globalisation"). The influence of capitalism in anglosaxon understanidng is not so much directly caused by the existence of a physical, regional empire, but the influence anglosaxon culture in general had on the global cultural climate. It would dominate today even without a British Empire ever having existed, for it is basing on an aeons-old characteristic of man (egoism, the craving for profit, and to improve one's material basis), and just shifted some accentuations.

That does not mean I like or defend Anglosaxon understanding of totally liberal, unregulated markets and predator capitalism. I just describe how I see history's processes. the British already were able to hold their ground against overwhelming odds during the Napoleonic wars, which were an era before the British Empire in the meaning of the word emerged. Although france potentially was hopelessly superior in finances, the British changed certain aspects in their banking sytems and tax system to mobilise the needed economic and capital ressources to outsit the French, who also did not make best use of their economic potential. That way, a people that was smaller in numbers and smaller in economic power was able to not only survive Napoleon, but to increase it's influence in europe, and after the final defeat of the French "beast" continued to expand into a maritime trade empire. The understanding to support such a project had been formed before the structures of the global empire were formed.

Regarding buddhism, I want to make you believe nothing pro or contra, so do what you want. Your latest comment just clearly illustrates that you obviously lack needed knowledge about it. But if you criticise something, you need to know it in order to know why you criticise it. Note that I have expressed a rejecting attiude to buddhist sects myself - but said that they indeed are like any other religious institution - but do not necessarily focus of the essential basics of Siddharta's arguments. And that's what they were: arguments, born by observation, deductive logic, and rational conclusions. If you think you need to compare Buddhist thinking to scientology, you just reveal yourself as a total fool not really knowing what he is talking about. You could as well declare the sermon on the mountain a fashist manifest.

I do not like your always present, constant subliminal or obvious hostility, wether it be towards Germans, politics, me, or whatever, and your last unacceptable outburst some days ago still is on my mind. If you can't do without that, save your time, for I refuse to continue any communication with you then.

[TarJak]

I would sooner convert to Buddhism than any other religion, though. I like their philosophy of peace, enlightenment, and tapping in with your surroundings.Yeah but the food gets a tad dull after a while. Other than that its all good.:D

[Letum]

obviously you mean the term revolution metaphorically when you really think there are several ones every year.
No. I don't.
What are elections if not peaceful, well organized revolutions?

The old order is over thrown peacefully and non-violently. What do you expect a
peaceful revolution to look like? Some kind of anarchic rabble?

They are extremely effective.
They could be done violently, but they are not.

[SUBMAN1]

Shall we compare the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of violent
force is common place with the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of
violent force is rare?
I vote this as the dumbest argument so far for 2009. :up:

-S

[Skybird]

obviously you mean the term revolution metaphorically when you really think there are several ones every year.
No. I don't.
What are elections if not peaceful, well organized revolutions?

The old order is over thrown peacefully and non-violently. What do you expect a
peaceful revolution to look like? Some kind of anarchic rabble?

They are extremely effective.
They could be done violently, but they are not.
Elections are no revolutions, even if one occasionally describes them to have a revolutionary effect if resulting in unusual strong shifts in power structures, compared to "lamer" elections - but that is metaphorically meant only, not literally. Elections play by the old rules nevertheless. Revolutions kick the old rules out of the window.

If this autumn the German great coalition gets replaced with a conservative-liberal one, this is just an election - not a revolution. If the people rebel in the streets, fight down the forces of the established constitutional order and replace democracy with let's say a left or right leaning dictatorship - then that is a revolution. While the term had a wider meaning in earlier times, since the French revolution the meaning of the word includes the understanding of a forceful, violent revolt resulting in a coup during which the old order gets smashed and is attempted to be wiped out completely.

Not even Obama following Bush is a revolution. Let's simply call it a "change".

Are you trying to make one of your jokes again...? Anyhow, let's not play wordgames here, that's not my business.

What do you expect a
peaceful revolution to look like? Some kind of anarchic rabble?

Study the events in Eastern Germany during fall 1989. That was the first truly peaceful revolution in Europe indeed. And we call it that over here indeed: a revolution, not more, not less.

[Letum]

The only reason elections do not throw the old rules out of the window is because
so far most people are happy with the old rules.
That does not mean elections are not capable of as much revolutionary change as a
civil war. There is nothing a violent revolution can do that an election can not.




Shall we compare the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of violent
force is common place with the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of
violent force is rare?
I vote this as the dumbest argument so far for 2009. :up:

-S

I vote it the most obvious.

That aside, care to elaborate?

[AngusJS]

To compare it with Stalin's tyranny, is the most absurd thing I've red in this board for one or two weeks. which means it is really quite absurd. The British Empire was Light and Shadow, in in many places it was more light than shadow. Stalinism only was deepest darkness. Is there any civilisational benefit you would see in it? Hardly. with estimations of victims killed by Stalinism ranging from 20 to 40 millions, it would need courage to claim that.

Stalin industrialized the USSR, eventually making it a superpower. This industrial capacity was instrumental in destroying the Nazis.

Certainly, similar economic results could have been attained without killing 20 million people. I'm just saying in some ways the Soviet Union did benefit from Stalinism, so there was some social benefit.

[Skybird]

The only reason elections do not throw the old rules out of the window is because
so far most people are happy with the old rules.
That does not mean elections are not capable of as much revolutionary change as a
civil war. There is nothing a violent revolution can do that an election can not.

Beside several other imp0ortant implications opposing you claim, the most obvious is this: at no election you can vote and bring a faction to power that has promised to overthrow the consitutional order, for almnost every constitution we know in the West forbid anti-constitutional activity and sets the constitutional order itself beyond reach of election results, aily politics. The German constitution even grants you the right (if you are German by nationality) to resist to such attempts by violence and brute force. Also, constitutions usually define certain things that are "verboten" and if you do them nevertheless, you lose basic rights of your citizenship and/or freedoms usually guaranteed. Abuse of such freedoms and assault on the comnstitution for example is such an offence. Rights of members of special branches of service also see limitations to their freedoms. Compare German Basic Law, articles 17a, 18, 19, 20.

Elections have limits, they obligate you to play by the rules of the system and not violating them. Revolt against such rules, that is not allowed by, in and through elections, could lead to revolutions. that'S why people get it hammered into their heads that they should vote: participiating in elections usually is the best way to prevent them revolting in serious, for in the act of participating it makes them submitting to the system's rules they eventually wanted to overthrow. But if you follow the rules, you can't overthrow them, and almost certainly not at the desired speed. You cannot accept something and be against it at the same time. However, if you are willing to invest years and decades (assuming you have not only such patience, but also the needed time), it may eventually work. The "re"-Islamisation of the secular state in Turkey by the fundemantalists of the AKP is such an example. And the most effective way to throw back these radicals would be to allow the military it's constitutional role to protect and guard the state against anti-secular assaults and ambitions - by force, which here would be sued for good, then. That is why the Turkish military plays such an active role in Turkish politics - fully legally by the Turkish constitution that it is oligated to protect by doing so.

[Skybird]

To compare it with Stalin's tyranny, is the most absurd thing I've red in this board for one or two weeks. which means it is really quite absurd. The British Empire was Light and Shadow, in in many places it was more light than shadow. Stalinism only was deepest darkness. Is there any civilisational benefit you would see in it? Hardly. with estimations of victims killed by Stalinism ranging from 20 to 40 millions, it would need courage to claim that.

Stalin industrialized the USSR, eventually making it a superpower. This industrial capacity was instrumental in destroying the Nazis.

Certainly, similar economic results could have been attained without killing 20 million people. I'm just saying in some ways the Soviet Union did benefit from Stalinism, so there was some social benefit.
You could say the same about hitler, and Germany after Versaille. There certainly was no unemployment under the Nazis, and the industry boomed, and before the middle of WWII people had bread on their table again. that was the reason why Hitler managed to blind the Germans initially - he turned the treaty of Versaille against the Allies, so to speak.

[Letum]

If the majority of the people want drastic constitutional change, then the disallowing of
anti-constitutional activity is not going to stop it happening once a government with a
mind to change the constitution is in power. All they need is popular support and a
revolutionary atmosphere. No violence is needed.

[Skybird]

And when the government does not allow thsat, and defends the constitution? Parties working against the constitution get legally forbidden, once that is proven. It does not matter whether or not the government really believes in that cojstitution, or is just in defemse of an oligarchic interest group abusing the label of democracy to conceil itself (current status today in most Western nations). Also, not all governments are really democratic - most are not. none of the Eastern "revolutions" in the wake of 1989 would have been succeesful without Gorbatchev essentially dismantling the Soviert Union all by himself. How it goes without the power agreeing on peaceful transition rules, we have seen in Hungary and the CSSR. there the marching crowds got shot into pieces.

I think we can stop the conversation here. It has become clear that it will lead us nowhere.

[Letum]

And when the government does not allow thsat, and defends the constitution?

They get voted out if favor of someone who will allow it!

[OneToughHerring]

To compare it with Stalin's tyranny, is the most absurd thing I've red in this board for one or two weeks. which means it is really quite absurd. The British Empire was Light and Shadow, in in many places it was more light than shadow. Stalinism only was deepest darkness. Is there any civilisational benefit you would see in it? Hardly. with estimations of victims killed by Stalinism ranging from 20 to 40 millions, it would need courage to claim that.

Stalin industrialized the USSR, eventually making it a superpower. This industrial capacity was instrumental in destroying the Nazis.

Certainly, similar economic results could have been attained without killing 20 million people. I'm just saying in some ways the Soviet Union did benefit from Stalinism, so there was some social benefit. You could say the same about hitler, and Germany after Versaille. There certainly was no unemployment under the Nazis, and the industry boomed, and before the middle of WWII people had bread on their table again. that was the reason why Hitler managed to blind the Germans initially - he turned the treaty of Versaille against the Allies, so to speak.

Germany didn't have any unemployment but they were geared toward only one goal, war. And not just any war, a world war. So I don't see the Germany of 1930's as a state that had any other option but to try to take over the planet through war. Any other option wouldn't have worked for them.

For the Soviets, they rose after the WW 2 as a significant world power. This after having been the attacked by the nazis and beaten about 75 - 80 % of the nazi war machine to a pile of junk. Not bad for a nation that only recently emerged from under the yoke of the Czarist rule, serfdom and slavery.

[Thomen]

Germany didn't have any unemployment but they were geared toward only one goal, war. And not just any war, a world war. So I don't see the Germany of 1930's as a state that had any other option but to try to take over the planet through war. Any other option wouldn't have worked for them.


No unemployment?

Please, feel free to educate yourself..

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080612064901AADCOge

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/statistik/arbeits11b/index.html

http://www.towson.edu/heartfield/events/1930.html

1932 - 43% German Labor Force Unemployment
At the height of the European Depression the German labor force was decimated by its highest unemployment rate ever. With poor economic leadership Germany as well as the U.S. and England sank deeper into the depression, until forced spending stimulated the Economy in 1933 and 1934.

[OneToughHerring]

Well I guess both me and Skybird are wrong about this then. :)

I suppose there was unemployment but there weren't people who made a noise about it. If they did they wouldn't have been around for much longer. Hence, no unemployment.

Generally there is this idea that under the nazi rule there were so many government projects etc. that there simply wasn't much unemployment. But I guess there was some.

[Thomen]

Well I guess both me and Skybird are wrong about this then. :)

I suppose there was unemployment but there weren't people who made a noise about it. If they did they wouldn't have been around for much longer. Hence, no unemployment.

Generally there is this idea that under the nazi rule there were so many government projects etc. that there simply wasn't much unemployment. But I guess there was some.

:yep:
The second link shows the progression of the unemployment numbers from 1921 until 1939. After 1932 the numbers decline steeply, which suggests that there where huge projects before the drafting and training of troops began in '38 and '39. The Autobahn, among other, didn't built itself.

[Skybird]

And when the government does not allow thsat, and defends the constitution?

They get voted out if favor of someone who will allow it!
Some yes. Most not. How long was honecker head of state? And do you really beoieve that for 20 years 97% of Egyptians voted for Mubarak? and were Mao, Hitler or Stalin democratically elected by the people? Or The Taleban in Afghanistan until 2001? Why was there a French revolution, if elections would jhave done the trick?

You are talking about an ideal utopia in which reason and humanism rule and reasonable decisions by altruistic minds form actions and policies for the benefit of all. I do not know a single country working like that, nowehre - and that includes germany and america as well. And I say that despite Obamania. He will only make a difference like lets say Reagan made a difference to Carter: another man, some decisons being made different, some accents get reset. The general rule set by which the system runs remains the same. It will not be different in the upcoming German elections.

As I said, I think these thought experiments lead nowhere. Let's move on.

[Happy Times]

To compare it with Stalin's tyranny, is the most absurd thing I've red in this board for one or two weeks. which means it is really quite absurd. The British Empire was Light and Shadow, in in many places it was more light than shadow. Stalinism only was deepest darkness. Is there any civilisational benefit you would see in it? Hardly. with estimations of victims killed by Stalinism ranging from 20 to 40 millions, it would need courage to claim that.

Stalin industrialized the USSR, eventually making it a superpower. This industrial capacity was instrumental in destroying the Nazis.

Certainly, similar economic results could have been attained without killing 20 million people. I'm just saying in some ways the Soviet Union did benefit from Stalinism, so there was some social benefit. You could say the same about hitler, and Germany after Versaille. There certainly was no unemployment under the Nazis, and the industry boomed, and before the middle of WWII people had bread on their table again. that was the reason why Hitler managed to blind the Germans initially - he turned the treaty of Versaille against the Allies, so to speak.

Germany didn't have any unemployment but they were geared toward only one goal, war. And not just any war, a world war. So I don't see the Germany of 1930's as a state that had any other option but to try to take over the planet through war. Any other option wouldn't have worked for them.

For the Soviets, they rose after the WW 2 as a significant world power. This after having been the attacked by the nazis and beaten about 75 - 80 % of the nazi war machine to a pile of junk. Not bad for a nation that only recently emerged from under the yoke of the Czarist rule, serfdom and slavery.

LMAO :rotfl:
You really meen they shifted from Czarist yoke to Stalinist rule, serfdom and slavery?

Its funny how you can talk about the two maniacs and their regimes so differently.

You do know USSR really had a plan to take over the world and Nazi Germany didnt?

[Letum]

[...]As I said, I think these thought experiments lead nowhere. Let's move on.

Why? I'm enjoying this. ;)

Of course Stalin, Hitler and other nasties where not democratically voted in, however
all of them could have achieved power non-violently and all of them could have been
ousted from power non-violently if the will of the people is strong enough.

[OneToughHerring]

LMAO :rotfl:
You really meen they shifted from Czarist yoke to Stalinist rule, serfdom and slavery?

Its funny how you can talk about the two maniacs and their regimes so differently.

You do know USSR really had a plan to take over the world and Nazi Germany didnt?
No. Why don't you ask Russians themselves if they found serfdom during the Czar a better option to socialism. I mean, it's their issues that we little Finns are discussing here, right?

Everyone can have plans, it's what actually happens that matters.

Skybird,

the whole Stalin vs. British empire - debate started from your denigration of Gandhi and his non-violent ways. It's kind of interesting that on the other hand you seem to appreciate Buddhism which also claims to be a non-violent religion.

[Stealth Hunter]

1932 - 43% German Labor Force Unemployment
At the height of the European Depression the German labor force was decimated by its highest unemployment rate ever. With poor economic leadership Germany as well as the U.S. and England sank deeper into the depression, until forced spending stimulated the Economy in 1933 and 1934.
Well I guess both me and Skybird are wrong about this then. :)

No, not really. Hitler didn't have command and the Nazi doctrine didn't become the official political philosophy of the German people until January 30, 1933, when Paul von Hindenburg stepped down. So really, the 1932 statistics are not important here since Skybird's point and your agreement was There certainly was no unemployment under the Nazis, and the industry boomed . . .

[Skybird]

Not sure I was understood exactly and I was precise enough.

Their was bitter crisis in Germany in the beginning of the Nazi movement. Hitler started to successfully tackle it, and over the years he brought unemployement down, and families were fed again, since short time before the war broke out until the introductory phase of it was over. This is what I meant when saying there was no unemployment under the Nazis. Hitler used the worse situation caused by Versaille to become popular by ignoring and avoiding rules of the treaty and improving the detoriated situation.

That all that had it's price, goes without saying.

[caspofungin]

It brought rudimentary basics - and often quite some more - of humanism, civilisation and education to quite some hellholes of blossoming barbarism and places of constant bloodshed. It taught people the basics of administration and maintaining a public society where before people spend their time with trying to kill each other with clubs and axes.

no offense, but that's bollocks. that's exactly the argument that the brits used to justify their colonialism -- the whole "white man's burden." It implies that until the Europeans arrived, nowhere in Africa or India had any sort of government or civilization.

And by the way, the Brits and the Germans managed to kill Africans and Indians wholesale. But I guess being shot to pieces by a Mauser or a Martini-Henry beats being killed with "clubs and axes."

[Happy Times]

It brought rudimentary basics - and often quite some more - of humanism, civilisation and education to quite some hellholes of blossoming barbarism and places of constant bloodshed. It taught people the basics of administration and maintaining a public society where before people spend their time with trying to kill each other with clubs and axes.

no offense, but that's bollocks. that's exactly the argument that the brits used to justify their colonialism -- the whole "white man's burden." It implies that until the Europeans arrived, nowhere in Africa or India had any sort of government or civilization.

And by the way, the Brits and the Germans managed to kill Africans and Indians wholesale. But I guess being shot to pieces by a Mauser or a Martini-Henry beats being killed with "clubs and axes."

The fact remains they are still using the legislature and bodies of goverment that the Europeans introduced.

[Skybird]

It brought rudimentary basics - and often quite some more - of humanism, civilisation and education to quite some hellholes of blossoming barbarism and places of constant bloodshed. It taught people the basics of administration and maintaining a public society where before people spend their time with trying to kill each other with clubs and axes.

no offense, but that's bollocks. that's exactly the argument that the brits used to justify their colonialism -- the whole "white man's burden." It implies that until the Europeans arrived, nowhere in Africa or India had any sort of government or civilization.

And by the way, the Brits and the Germans managed to kill Africans and Indians wholesale. But I guess being shot to pieces by a Mauser or a Martini-Henry beats being killed with "clubs and axes."
Don't try to paint black and white here. I am npot in that "white man's burden" business. What I point at, simply is a historical truth - althoug for reasons of political correctness and always bashing at that totally, completely bad colonialism that gets comfortably ignored today. but it is true that in many places where the british arrived, the Pax Britannica established an rlative order or stablity and peace that before was not known, and that they brought end to generations-long bloody wars between tribes. This does not minimises the violent excesses they sometimes launched themselves. There is also no doubt whatever that in many places after the British left, violence broke out again thats ome times rslted in genocides of biblical proporations, and displays of incredible, horrific acts of brutality and bloodthirsty barbarism. and only in some places that is becasue of artifical border drawn on maps that forced ethnicities and tribes to live together that before Britsh rule were living separately.

Not black and whiter painting, please. It needs to be seen with some more discrimination (? differentiation), really. I know quite some places in Africe that would be better off today with the British still ruling. And there are some bloodsheds going on to which the British acts of violence fade in size and cruelty.

For this hiostoric argument I sometimes have said in threads that if only America would use it's power more objectively and less egocentrical, a Pax Americana eventually could be a blessing for the world. I criticise america a lot - but that does not change that I nevertheless stand behind very many of it's basic principles as they have been formulated or formed out in their optimum idealistic form. In other words I criticise the gap between ideal and reality, the distortion and violation and the forgetting of these ideals - and not the ideals themselves. In that form they are an utopia, probably, and maybe never will be reached. But that does not change their nobleness and attraction (nor does it form a right or a need to aggressively impose these on others even if they do not want them).

[caspofungin]

Peace was imposed by force of arms, rather than by reaching an agreement satisfactory to all sides -- that's not a problem in and of itself. "Relative peace and stability" -- true enough, but at what cost? Exploitation of the locals, repression of their cultures, to say nothing of the lives lost. If colonialism was such a boon to the peoples of Africa and the Indian subcontinent, why all the struggles for independence?

You paint a picture of colonialism as some forerunner to a UN peacekeeping force -- when in reality it was economic exploitation justified by racial denigration.

And "incredible, horrific acts of brutality and barbarism" occured all over the world, even in "civilised" Europe. And they're still happening today.

Not black and whiter painting, please. It needs to be seen with some more discrimination
I'll assume you're not patronizing me. I'm not painting history in black and white, I'm quoting your statement (the original statement, without your later expostition) directly, and saying that it echoes exactly the sentiments of modern-day "colonialists" who say, "colonialism wasn't that bad" based on, well, ignorance.


"I know quite some places in Africe that would be better off today with the British still ruling."

Yeah, sometimes my friends and I from ex-colonies say the same thing. But when it comes down to it, no-one means it -- no offense, but we'd rather manage our own affairs than have some clown who wasn't good enough to get a job in London come over and dictate policy. Even if our own management sucks.

I guess I have a different view of colonialism. Was taught one version of history at school in the UK, learned another in the ex-colony that I'm originally from. And just because one viewpoint differs from yours, doesn't make it "political correctness."

[Happy Times]

Im not a fan of British colonialism by any means, but im not talking about Australia or America.
I have always stated, when acccused as racist, that i dont care if your blue or green in colour, but cultures/civilisations are not equal in my eyes.

[Happy Times]

I'm curious, if cultures are not equal it means that some are superior to others. How do you measure which culture is better than another ?

Ofcourse its subjective, i know the cannibals feel they are right also.
I dont think we have to take this culture by force to anyone, but we also must protect it from others.

[Skybird]

Peace was imposed by force of arms,
If it is a fair, objective peace, that is okay. I do not ask a terror regime for permission whether or not I am allowed to pacify its country, if the people wants that and I have the means to achcieve that. The US attack in Iraq was illegal because it was not wanted by Iraqis.

rather than by reaching an agreement satisfactory to all sides -- that's not a problem in and of itself. "Relative peace and stability" -- true enough, but at what cost? Exploitation of the locals, repression of their cultures, to say nothing of the lives lost. If colonialism was such a boon to the peoples of Africa and the Indian subcontinent, why all the struggles for independence?

You paint a picture of colonialism as some forerunner to a UN peacekeeping force -- when in reality it was economic exploitation justified by racial denigration.

Indeed, much of it was just that. However I insist on seeing it more differentiated. Even with these things being true, some regions were better off with the British, than they had been before, or afterwards. I have a hard time to see that independance alone justifies the genocide in Rwanda a decade ago, when people literally were hacked into pieces, women were raped to death and babies saw no mercy as well. I have no problem seing a strong foreign military presence and political ruling of the country being the superior and much more civilised solution to what has happened then.

And "incredible, horrific acts of brutality and barbarism" occured all over the world, even in "civilised" Europe. And they're still happening today.
Europe is ahead of several global regions concerning lrevels of civilisation, in fact it is so highyl-developed that not the high level is reversing into it's opposite, a carricature and exaggeration of such values. however it's years of heavy violence and barbarism are over since longer time now. whet5her or not there is a chance that they will return, is something different, I could imagine scenarios where this will happen. Things like the Balkan wars in general do not change the fact. However, at the time we write this, people gets slain with machetes in Darfhur, and until some days ago the prospect to contribute to the statistic of millions killed in the genocides in Kongo by you own body, for many people was a realistic perspective. show me where you see comparing events in North, Central, Southen or Western Europe.

I'll assume you're not patronizing me. I'm not painting history in black and white, I'm quoting your statement (the original statement, without your later expostition) directly, and saying that it echoes exactly the sentiments of modern-day "colonialists" who say, "colonialism wasn't that bad" based on, well, ignorance.

Yeah, sometimes my friends and I from ex-colonies say the same thing. But when it comes down to it, no-one means it -- no offense, but we'd rather manage our own affairs than have some clown who wasn't good enough to get a job in London come over and dictate policy. Even if our own management sucks.
You just answered your own question from earlier, "why all the struggles for independence?"

In no way I say or said colonialism is fun or was great, and I do not engage in the philosophical legitimations of it that were given for by those propagating Western ruling of the world. Just say that by it's effects it brought not only darkness, but both light and shadow to many regions, and some of them are taking profit from that until today. I also do not defend napoleonic aggression, but as a matter of fact the French brought some administrative organisation to german cities that had a positive effect and are being copied until today, while the Code Napoleon is still valid in France until today.

Just curious, where are you from? Some African country, I understand, probably northern or central Africa, I assume, since Islam is more spread there than in the South.

[Frame57]

I think this why the Shaolin monks learned how to kick some serious butt...:D

[caspofungin]

In no way I say or said colonialism is fun or was great, and I do not engage in the philosophical legitimations of it that were given for by those propagating Western ruling of the world. Just say that by it's effects it brought not only darkness, but both light and shadow to many regions, and some of them are taking profit from that until today.

fair enough.

btw, i'm from sudan originally, born and raised in the uk, also spent time (several years each) in saudi arabia and the usa. actually, i'm off to south africa in a couple of days.

[OneToughHerring]

I have a hard time to see that independance alone justifies the genocide in Rwanda a decade ago, when people literally were hacked into pieces, women were raped to death and babies saw no mercy as well. I have no problem seing a strong foreign military presence and political ruling of the country being the superior and much more civilised solution to what has happened then.

First of all it was the Western colonial rule of Rwanda that created and hightened the tensions in the region. Secondly there was a foreign military presence in Rwanda, the UN, but they fumbled the ball and were wholly unable to stop the genocide. Of course this hasn't stopped the UN leader of the troops in Rwanda to parade around as some kind of hero since.

Europe is ahead of several global regions concerning lrevels of civilisation, ...

There cannot be many mountain tops, only one. Europe has throughout it's history achieved it's position of power by standing on the shoulders of others. Are you saying that Africa should do the same thing and send Europe into a centuries long cycle of powerty, disease and famine?

[Happy Times]

Europe is ahead of several global regions concerning lrevels of civilisation, ...

There cannot be many mountain tops, only one. Europe has throughout it's history achieved it's position of power by standing on the shoulders of others. Are you saying that Africa should do the same thing and send Europe into a centuries long cycle of powerty, disease and famine?

Europe has achieved its position because of its culture.
For poverty, disease and famine, Africa didnt need any help.

[caspofungin]

yeah, and a major part of that culture was expoiting non-europeans. and as for why africa is poor, sick, and hungry -- well, books have been written on the subject. their own leadership (or lack of it) played a major part, but to put it down as "it's all their own fault" is a bit of an oversimplification.

[OneToughHerring]

Europe is ahead of several global regions concerning lrevels of civilisation, ...
There cannot be many mountain tops, only one. Europe has throughout it's history achieved it's position of power by standing on the shoulders of others. Are you saying that Africa should do the same thing and send Europe into a centuries long cycle of powerty, disease and famine?
Europe has achieved its position because of its culture.
For poverty, disease and famine, Africa didnt need any help.
Behold, the Finnish übermench speaks. :p

African nations have never recieved a fair compensation of the produce that they've 'gifted' to Europe and the West, mostly the former colonial masters and companies from those countries benefited. It's like wealth created through slave labour, pretty much the same thing happened in nazi-Germany with the 'untermench' doing the work.

[Happy Times]

Europe is ahead of several global regions concerning lrevels of civilisation, ...
There cannot be many mountain tops, only one. Europe has throughout it's history achieved it's position of power by standing on the shoulders of others. Are you saying that Africa should do the same thing and send Europe into a centuries long cycle of powerty, disease and famine?
Europe has achieved its position because of its culture.
For poverty, disease and famine, Africa didnt need any help.
Behold, the Finnish übermench speaks. :p

African nations have never recieved a fair compensation of the produce that they've 'gifted' to Europe and the West, mostly the former colonial masters and companies from those countries benefited. It's like wealth created through slave labour, pretty much the same thing happened in nazi-Germany with the 'untermench' doing the work.

What produce? They mainly export natural resources.. And i think they get the world market price plus cheap loans and economic aid! Africa has the longest tradition of slave labour, they still use it..
Please give me a break, if they really would work instead of playing the victim, they would easily create some wealth.

[Skybird]

Foreign corporations have made sure they can interfere with local politics helping them to dump prices they have to pay for african resources. A lot of the corruption in Africa is not only "made in Africa", but helped by foreign lobbies. It goes as far as that there is also interfereing of Wetsern corprotations and nations in local conflpicts from war to genocide to ensure the econmical situation will be crtated that it prfitable for these foreign investors, and that means often: prfitable to the max, at the cost of Africans (not to mention the wars themselves).

So, African opportunism by some strong figures, and intfering by the West, goes hand in hand here.

It is true that due to its cultural history and the geographically created cultural climate of competition between nations in europe a massive advanatge in knowledge and education was createtd that helped europe to get the upper hand ins cience, tecnology, industry over other nations and continents that even today for the most, and in most caes, only can clöose the gap not by inventing such qualties themsleves, but by copying them, buying them, repeating them. so even under ideal conditions Africa for the most would live from export of resources, agricultural goods, tourism, and only slowly adapt to the level of high industrialisation we see in the West, china, japan. The question is if that really is desirable, like i also is the qustion if really every chinese must have his own car, and many people in the Wets needing several cars in their family. the earth can support (and take) only so much, and not more. I also think it must not necessarilöy be a bad thing (or discrimination) if africa under suh ideal conditions would have build a different economical baiss, than the West. australia'S or New Zealand'S economical structures also do not really compare to the structures in europe, and still they are doing fine and count amongst the highly developed and most progressive nations the world.

Both you two guys, Herring and Happy Times, see it too simplified and too polarised. But its not just black and white. It is complex, the West is not all the bad guy responsible for all evil in africa - but he also is not innocent, and contributes quite a lot to the overall evil. and it is the same with Africa itself. Some of its misery comes from colonialism, and the weakness from it that makes it now so vulnerable to the predatory economics hat try to exploit it. But part of it's internal violance also bases in roots and situations that derive from times before colonialism were supressed by and exchanged with colonialism, and went up into flames again after colonialism.

[caspofungin]

What produce? They mainly export natural resources.. And i think they get the world market price plus cheap loans and economic aid! Africa has the longest tradition of slave labour, they still use it..
Please give me a break, if they really would work instead of playing the victim, they would easily create some wealth.

@happy times

you need to get out more. or at least read a book. the world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

[Happy Times]

What produce? They mainly export natural resources.. And i think they get the world market price plus cheap loans and economic aid! Africa has the longest tradition of slave labour, they still use it..
Please give me a break, if they really would work instead of playing the victim, they would easily create some wealth.

@happy times

you need to get out more. or at least read a book. the world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

Its because i have done both, i think like i do.
I dont have dogmas like Herring, you can talk me out of it with logical and factual arguments.

[Letum]

I dont have dogmas like Herring, you can talk me out of it with logical and factual arguments.

You seam big on bold statements, but you do not often back then up with carefully
reasoned argument in the same way others (not all of whom I agree with) do.

Your post in this thread being a good case in point.

[Happy Times]

I dont have dogmas like Herring, you can talk me out of it with logical and factual arguments.

You seam big on bold statements, but you do not often back then up with carefully
reasoned argument in the same way others (not all of whom I agree with) do.

Your post in this thread being a good case in point.

What do you want me to back up?

[Letum]

This (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=491962)

;)

Nah, but seriously, I don't really want you to back up anything.