Thread: Pacifism in the MSM.

P.C wants martyrs not `heroes or heroines' Look at CNN and what they call "heroes".
Dissent is forbidden in their world of `group-think'.
Good points about pacifism. We don't have to have a knife, sword, or gun to fight.
Just send a letter, fax, or email, but do something!

Originally Posted by patthemick

I was thinking as I watched some old western on the jewtube about how pacifism has been portrayed over the years. It occurred to me that I can't think of one time when it wasn't portrayed as a noble christian trait and even when they exploited the hero of whatever movie or show to protect them you always got the undercurrent of pity for the poor violent hero.
That got me to thinking hasn't the media been telling us to be passive and accepting of any abuse our race recieves as long as another race benefits from our passivity. What good is a passivist to society? He lets others fight his battles for him and if it works out well takes advantage of the improvement in society and if it goes poorly he points out that he didn't attack the victor and can religiously pity his way out of the problem.
Is the white race being conditioned for passivity? I think so. Ever notice how Ghandi is promoted over and over again by the media? Self control is an admirable trait but if we are so emasculated that we will take any abuse are we still free?

What was the western? I've been watching heaps of them lately. So far, I gotta rate High Noon as the best. Now, that sherrif rejected pacifism.

And I'd think a bit harder before veering to the conclusion the white race is being 'conditioned for passivity', for if it were, it wouldn't be able to fight illegal wars on behalf of you-know-who. So, you might get some old baby boomer messages of love still coming through, but we're in the age of [Generation Kill] now. If anything, we're attached to two wire leads shock vaulting a schizophrenic cornucopia of conflicting ideas.

I don't care what anyone says about pacifism, I know for a fact it takes more intestinal fortitude to stand your ground, and not give an inch.

It is a problem, lets say for example you have a child getting bullied in school by non-Whites and consistently tell him, turn the other cheek, or it takes a man to walk away, its the Christian thing to do, or etc. My parents told me this when I was a kid, and I didn't take their advise. I reject turning the other cheek. Its just my opinion and I'm not telling anyone how to raise their kids, but we need to get past that suicidal pacifist way of thinking. We can start by not encouraging it on our kids. I got the right to say this, because I walked the shoes of a White kid going to a non-White school being in the severe minority. My parents had no idea what I was going through every day, and the teachers made them believe I was the trouble maker, so I often got jumped at school and then got whopped again when I got home. So if someone wants to talk pacifist and it being the Christian way, and etc, then you should walk in the shoes of a White kid in a school where Whites don't even make up 1%.

Originally Posted by Mr Frosty

I don't care what anyone says about pacifism, I know for a fact it takes more intestinal fortitude to stand your ground, and not give an inch.

It is a problem, lets say for example you have a child getting bullied in school by non-Whites and consistently tell him, turn the other cheek, or it takes a man to walk away, its the Christian thing to do, or etc. My parents told me this when I was a kid, and I didn't take their advise. I reject turning the other cheek. Its just my opinion and I'm not telling anyone how to raise their kids, but we need to get past that suicidal pacifist way of thinking. We can start by not encouraging it on our kids. I got the right to say this, because I walked the shoes of a White kid going to a non-White school being in the severe minority. My parents had no idea what I was going through every day, and the teachers made them believe I was the trouble maker, so I often got jumped at school and then got whopped again when I got home. So if someone wants to talk pacifist and it being the Christian way, and etc, then you should walk in the shoes of a White kid in a school where Whites don't even make up 1%.

You're equating pacifism/non violence with passivity and cowardice, two different things.
Pacifists and conscientious objectors often do go in harms way, physically putting themselves between aggressors and their targets.
Those White kids who go to the West Bank and escort little Palestinian children to school to try and protect them from attacks by Jewish settlers are Pacifists.
Pacifism is a form of activism, you don't find many people walking around saying "I'm a Pacifist" for no reason and the ones I know are pretty gutsy people.
Gandhi was somewhat different in that he was "aggressively non violent", his stance on abolishing Hinduism is an example of what I mean.

Originally Posted by Jay Of Melbourne

You're equating pacifism/non violence with passivity and cowardice, two different things.
Pacifists and conscientious objectors often do go in harms way, physically putting themselves between aggressors and their targets.
Those White kids who go to the West Bank and escort little Palestinian children to school to try and protect them from attacks by Jewish settlers are Pacifists.
Pacifism is a form of activism, you don't find many people walking around saying "I'm a Pacifist" for no reason and the ones I know are pretty gutsy people.
Gandhi was somewhat different in that he was "aggressively non violent", his stance on abolishing Hinduism is an example of what I mean.

He wanted to abolish the idea of untouchability and defended Hinduism as a whole (and did not even want to abolish the caste system). Granted I have not wholly researched this.

A survey of Hinduism - Google Books

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton

He wanted to abolish the idea of untouchability and defended Hinduism as a whole (and did not even want to abolish the caste system). Granted I have not wholly researched this.

A survey of Hinduism - Google Books

Yeah I'm not that up to speed with Indian politics either so I may have posted in error, I saw a documentary the other week that said he definitely did want to abolish Hinduism in the form that it existed at the time, this was based on new papers discovered in Britain. He's been posthumously accused of various things over the years, Gandhi contradicted himself a lot too, his support for the Dalits was highly conditional at best and he's held responsible for sabotaging several efforts to emancipate them.
The fanatical Muslims portrayed him as a Hindu extremist and the fanatical Hindus believed he was out to destroy their culture.
He's like a lot of historical figures, if you look at them objectively and with an open mind they can seem ambivalent on the issues they're supposed to have been passionate about or "obsessed" with.

Originally Posted by SydneyStan

What was the western? I've been watching heaps of them lately. So far, I gotta rate High Noon as the best. Now, that sherrif rejected pacifism.

And I'd think a bit harder before veering to the conclusion the white race is being 'conditioned for passivity', for if it were, it wouldn't be able to fight illegal wars on behalf of you-know-who. So, you might get some old baby boomer messages of love still coming through, but we're in the age of [Generation Kill] now. If anything, we're attached to two wire leads shock vaulting a schizophrenic cornucopia of conflicting ideas.

I was watching my old Bonanza re-run DVDs but we have all seen the noble quaker wagon train saved by the group of drifters. The thing is that war is considered a noble exercise for the U.S. military yet the television points out what mental deficient people soldiers are when they get back. Also notice the reliance on unmanned drones being promoted so while they appreciate the military assistance they are still calling us cowards and a little mad for serving our country.

Originally Posted by patthemick

I was watching my old Bonanza re-run DVDs but we have all seen the noble quaker wagon train saved by the group of drifters. The thing is that war is considered a noble exercise for the U.S. military yet the television points out what mental deficient people soldiers are when they get back. Also notice the reliance on unmanned drones being promoted so while they appreciate the military assistance they are still calling us cowards and a little mad for serving our country.

I think you just described The Deer Hunter.

Bingo! Good example of what I'm talking about. To the point though passivity isn't what got us to the top of the food chain. The reliance on passive resistance is a recipe for disaster against a ruthless enemy. Ghandi would have been killed if the Japanese had taken India. He also would have been relying on the more militant to protect him and thus if the indians won gaining all the benefits of fighting with none of the risks.

Originally Posted by patthemick

Bingo! Good example of what I'm talking about. To the point though passivity isn't what got us to the top of the food chain. The reliance on passive resistance is a recipe for disaster against a ruthless enemy. Ghandi would have been killed if the Japanese had taken India. He also would have been relying on the more militant to protect him and thus if the indians won gaining all the benefits of fighting with none of the risks.

Passive resistance isn't always a good idea. But...passive aggressiveness can be. If you've ever lived with one you know the damage they can cause. Always be aggressive and keep it secret. That's what the enemy has done on a grand scale.

Originally Posted by Henry Ford

Passive resistance isn't always a good idea. But...passive aggressiveness can be. If you've ever lived with one you know the damage they can cause. Always be aggressive and keep it secret. That's what the enemy has done on a grand scale.

Are you speaking of those who cry in pain as they strike someone?