To paraphrase the NRA (and forgive me if i think they have a point) – religion doesn’t kill people. People kill people…

I doubt the “peaceful Buddhist” Afghans were anything of the sort before Islam – they were pretty much the same, no doubt.

Cultural customs are far deeper than religious ones. British extremists of South Asian decent are not really practicing Islam, they are simply projecting their insecurities by adopting the culture of the caravan, shaped by desert-life of the Middle Ages.

If they felt spiritually and culturally secure, they would fit in more cheerfully, and probably be a lot more cheerful.

This hellhole must be purged of the evil of islamism. It spawned 9/11,
the taliban & just about every post 1945 form of nazism imaginable.

For human civilization to survive it is better that every diseased islamist be destroyed. Much better, of course, is it that they be shown the error of their ways & become genuine “moderates” – if they exist.
Best of all, they should become secularists & do our work for us.

I have sympathy for people who go to war believing they are doing so in defence of other people’s lives – although I might not usually believe the justifications for such wars myself. This is not pity, but sadness for their unwished-for situation, recognition that their actions make moral sense in their own minds and an attempt at empathy and respect for them by someone who has not gone to war.

I have sympathy too with their opponents in as much as they might feel exactly the same way and make similar sacrifices.

And sympathy too, perhaps more sympathy (as well as pity) for the victims of those wars.

When it comes to honour, I would wish to honour first those soldiers who, when recognising a particular war as aggressive, refuse their orders to fight in it.

I would also honour those soldiers who have the self-control and integrity to behave according to the human rights standards they are told they are fighting to protect – even though it may make them seem ridiculous to their colleagues.

I apologise for any offence people take at this, I do not want to insult anyone, but I feel that honouring soldiers for the fact of being soldiers, rather than their specific behaviour as individuals, makes me complicit in some way in the machinery of war – making the institutions of the army etc something proud and glorious rather than something undertaken with great reluctance by people who recognise they have been failed by the politicians who claim to want peace.

I’m sure ingesting caffine and ingesting mushrooms is exactly the same thing.

I for one would feel perfectly comfortable with my surgeon performing heart surgery on me having ingested either before performing complicated, precise movements in my innards. Heck if he See’s flying bats (keep moving this is bat country), then it must be some sort of inner truth that needs to be cut out of me.

Caffeine is a drug, yes. Its effects are mild. PCP is a drug, yes. Its effects are massive. Its really not that complicated. One will alter your mind significantly enough for you to hallucinate and see things that aren’t there. The other won’t. Neither will bring you spiritual enlightenment. One may make you think it has. And thats what makes it more dangerous.

Heh. Are we allowed to have proper drinks (a nice cup of oxo), or will it be vegetarian?

Rumbold @ 33: Thanks! Despite our many disagreements, the respect is mutual, and I’m glad we’ve come this far. I hope we’ll share a drink some day.

Inders @ 35:

the world as experienced and interacted with when you’re not artificially altering your brain chemistry.

Coffee anyone? Or perhaps you’d prefer some chocolate?

We’re all wired to the eyeballs on things which alter our brain chemistry, it’s just we don’t view most of them as “drugs”.

I mean, just imagine what the world would be like if millions of people – particularly those in positions of influence over others – didn’t start the day with an intense dose of caffeine?

(Would we all stay in bed and do nothing? Would that be such a bad thing, really? We’d get up and sort ourselves out some food when we got hungry… now apply that as a philosophy for living! What more do we actually need?)

I don’t believe there is such a thing as “drugs”, really. Anything we take into our bodies artificially alters our brain chemistry – even cheese, even bread, even water, even air (or lack of food, water or air, for that matter)!

I know people who fall asleep after eating raw onions, and people who become easily enraged after eating chillies.

There is no such thing as “the real world”, because to claim such is tantamount to claiming some sort of universal truth. There is just the world, and there is every individual’s interpretation of it, which seems completely “real” to nobody else but that individual.

Nobody is more or less qualified than anybody else to determine what is “real”. (I mean, for starters, how do you even know that you are real?)

But maybe I’m being overly pedantic here!? I do know what you are getting at, and I also don’t regard drugs as any kind of gateway to “truth”.

I don’t believe in universal truths – only individual ones.

But I do believe that certain drugs can provide a highly useful gateway to self-understanding for certain people (myself included), and that once some level of self-understanding is achieved, it’s a lot easier to judge other people a lot less.

When you recognise that “reality” is for all intents and purposes completely imaginary and based on nothing but billions of individual views on “it”, then it becomes a lot easier to understand why someone else might disagree with you, and to attempt to find methods for increasing understanding and resolving any dispute.

In fact, I had taken magic mushrooms a few times before I had this type of realisation. It was a combination of an incredible, almost religious experience of a trip, followed a few weeks later by a terrible, long dark night of the soul bad trip. I came away from all this somewhat humbled, and prepared to reconsider my place in the world and my interpretation of events.

I believe that a nation of people who judge other people a whole lot less is able to empathise with others more, and is less likely to resort to violence. I believe this (and many other positives) are the reasons most “drugs” are outlawed.

Labels are convenient ways for us to categorise and dispose of people using force without attempting to understand where they are coming from.

I even go as far as to apply this line of thinking to “fascists”, which is where I differ from many other anti-fascists who happen to regard “fascists” as subhuman.

I do not regard “fascists” as subhuman – merely as humans expressing their misunderstood needs or reaction to their sub-optimal circumstances, in ways which are tragically alienated from anything which is actually likely to meet those needs or change those circumstances.

So the way to defeat fascism is to empathise and get to the root causes of what makes it happen – basically, that people feel their life needs are not being met, and at that point are easily convinced to scapegoat the “other” under the mistaken / deliberately mislead view that this will help resolve their needs.

As for those who seek to lead fascists, well, aren’t they also just a product of a messed up world which could have done so much more to support them and stop their problems getting out of hand?

Everything (EVERYTHING!!!) comes down to how we raise our children. (Which is why as the father of a 9 month old, I know what a massive responsibility I have to her to try and give her a better start and a better understanding of the world than I had as a child.)

[...] For now I’d rather concentrate on the few hundred years of liberalism and meditate more on concepts such as the social contract and the rights of man.

Fair enough. I don’t believe any past society was particularly utopian or peaceful, but can we not cherry-pick the bits of wisdom discovered by those societies, and attempt to mould them together into something better for ourselves, coupled with empathy and our “advanced” understanding of things?

Surely we have reached an age where we know better than to scapegoat others, or to fight them?

And yet, year after year, “our leaders” (they are not my leaders!) drag us into more and more conflicts – and for what?

To protect our perceived sense of “privilege”.

So let’s share out that “privilege” so we can all live as best as possible, and there will be no reason for war.

It’s funny really – on one hand, I recognise that humans are just animals, and that we are ultimately no better or worse than any other animals.

But on the other hand, I have some hope that we can do better, and I refuse to believe it’s not possible to create a better world for all to live in. I believe it is completely possible to rise above our “animal” urges, such as to kill and steal and so on for our own gain.

It really does have to start with changing ourselves though, and how we treat others – including other animals and the natural world. I’m still – and will probably always be – working on myself.

There are countless people from Huxley (whose ‘eyeless in gaza’ is a fantastic pacifist book) to Phillip k dick who chronicled psychedelics and their use and most of them come to the same conclusion.

The native americans, warred. The europeans warred. The middle easterners and the africans warred. The indians warred and the chinese warred. All with different retrospective reasons, and different philosophies. All with the same basic reason. The same reason that bats cheat (the selfish gene, richard dawkins) or the ants war (wood ant wars, Mabelis). No amount of dope is going to stop it.

If you’re trying to rewrite a few hundred thousand years of history and a few million years of evolution then good look. For now I’d rather concentrate on the few hundred years of liberalism and meditate more on concepts such as the social contract and the rights of man.

Inders @ 28:
Isn’t it a bit egotistical to claim to know what the “real world” is? I think my point still stands, that the “real world” can be anything we want it to be, if we want it hard enough.

Then, as a separate point, that magic mushrooms (and other psychoactive substances) can provide a very valuable tool for understanding ourselves, understanding each other, and finding peace – which is no doubt one of the many reasons they are outlawed. (Because people finding inner peace is not conducive to power structures, profit and warmongering.)

Direct action does not have to involve the use of force – see Ghandi, for example.

I’ll see if I can track down “Homage to Catalonia”. Still, anarchist thought and understanding has come a hell of a long way since the Spanish civil war, and a lot of past mistakes have been (and are being) learned from.

Chairwoman @ 29:

what if the regime that wanted what we would freely give, was a regime that wanted to enslave us?

I’m not sure that question makes sense? If your hypothetical regime would enslave us, then it is not asking us to give something freely, but just taking it from us.

My point on this matter was that it is because humans have created systems of society which are very unfair, and result in the few stealing from the many (eg. rich minority world taking resources from the poor majority world, and benefiting from their poverty), and that this is why we have war.

That if we equalised the distribution of resources and autonomy over our own lives and communities as far as was humanly possible, so that everybody could afford to live and let live, and so that nobody was exploited for anybody else’s gain, then there would be a lot less reasons for war.

As you say, there have always been greedy people – but they are a minority. After all, if we are all so greedy and acquisitive, then why is marketing and advertising such a massive industry?

(I mean, we all know how crap the police are at catching people. Why not all just go out and steal all the stuff we supposedly want? Why? Because we actually don’t really want, and because the vast majority don’t steal from each other in spite of the law – not because of it.)

Beyond our basic needs in order to stay alive, most people do not want to acquire loads of “things”, and indeed, find it hard to make use of more than a certain number of “things”. For the most part, we are pretty happy to potter along with our lives, and leave others to do the same.

Anarchy would return excess, unused “things” to the community, and make it impossible for any individual to amass more than they could actually make use of themselves.

In a society which put people first, in which we made time for one another instead of competing for artificially limited resources, people’s self-esteem and community-mindedness would be sufficient that they wouldn’t want to encumber themselves with the acquisition of lots of “things” anyway.

Yes, humans can be greedy, but this greed has been accentuated and increased a thousandfold in order for capitalists to make profits, and for politicians to be able to divide us against each other, and thus have power over us.

Our society has been engineered in order to control us and make us dependent on companies and on the state to meet our basic living needs, but most people are not actually that greedy, and in a better type of society would be even less so.

For the few “hardcore” that remain, they can be dealt with compassionately and non-violently within a strong community that can easily look after itself, and make it impossible for their greedy tendencies to manifest themselves.

As for your theory on distributing “all the world’s wealth”, well, a few words on that:

1. I am talking about creating a radically different social paradigm to our current one. It’s not going to happen overnight, but we can start by changing ourselves, and then allowing others the freedom to do the same.

2. Underpinning your theory is the relatively modern assumption that the world is made of “stuff” which “belongs” to us. I do not believe this is the case, and neither do many of the previous societies from around the world, with notable examples like the native Americans who do not view the earth as a mere piggy-bank to be emptied as quickly as possible.

We belong to the world, and are entrusted with custodianship of it, which we in turn will pass on to future generations.

So I am not talking about “redistributing wealth” as such, but rather about not distributing anything – not taking anything, even – and merely living here and trying to create the type of society that we would be honoured to pass on to the children of the future.

I don’t exactly subscribe to “property is theft”, but I do believe there’s quite a lot of truth to that. Equalise access to land and resources and stop viewing the world as “ours” to take away from, and maybe we’ll get to the point where we realise that we can easily contribute to ecosystems for the benefit of everyone, and that all can live an incredibly easy, utopian life.

Chairwoman @ 30:
Psychoactive substances are just one way for some people to find inner peace. Perhaps you could try a different psychoactive substance, or a different thing altogether. Gardening, meditation, painting, music, cooking, wood carving, cycling… there are thousands of ways to find comfort with who you are.

(Incidentally, I’m not saying that I am 100% comfortable with who I am, but I’m certainly a lot better than I used to be.)

Actually, it is in coming to accept other people for who they are, and to try not to judge them (again, I do slip up) where I have been able to find quite a considerable amount of peace within myself.

Yes, I see the greedy, and the mean, and the violent, and the power-crazed – but I still understand that underneath all that, is a person who’s humanity I stand some chance of reaching if I make an effort not to judge them, and to communicate openly and honestly.

Again, just in case it’s not obvious: I slip up often!!!!

It is quite difficult to rehabilitate yourself away from your old ways of judgement, condemnation and assumptions about what other’s motives must be – but it is possible if approached with an open mind.

Shatterface @ 31:

Sorry, but your solutions only work in a world in which everyone else are also anarchists

I’m not in agreement with you there.

“My” solutions (they are not mine, but are as old as the hills) will work in a world where people believe it is possible for them to work, and change themselves to be in alignment with that desire.

So maybe people like me will be pointing this out forever, but as that old Chinese proverb goes: fall down nine times, get up ten times.

Despite climate change, peak oil, destruction of nature, the worldwide economic collapse, and there being even more hungry mouths to feed than ever before – I actually am confident that humanity will, through necessity if nothing else, begin to get things right within my lifetime.

Maybe I am destined for disappointment, but better to maintain an unfulfilled hope for my whole life, than to give it up now.

but even where we are not under immediate threat ourselves and a case cannot be made for self-defense, there are occasions when the defense of others may justify fighting.

Hence my differentiation between the protective use of force and the punitive use of force.

We can argue about the justification of war on a case by case basis but anarchism its does not preclude armed conflict for the benefit of others.

I am not arguing that it does, but am merely seeking to vastly reduce the number circumstances where war is “necessary”, likely, or possible.

That starts by changing ourselves, and our judgemental attitudes towards others.

Further reading for anybody who is interested – the “Nonviolent Communication” work of Marshall Rosenberg, which begins with this book.

I’m afraid this is probably all I have time for today, but I will attempt to respond to any other responses tomorrow.

I do think he is wrong about the military though. Human beings tend to be good naturally, but temptation and circumstance will always lead to some doing bad things. Now, it is a shame that the world is this way, but it is. If Britain became a pacifist nation it would simply make us a target.

Anarchism takes issue with the INITIATION of conflict, but even where we are not under immediate threat ourselves and a case cannot be made for self-defense, there are occasions when the defense of others may justify fighting.

We can argue about the justification of war on a case by case basis but anarchism its does not preclude armed conflict for the benefit of others.

I have dallied with this substance in a different lifetime, and it didn’t make me feel particularly peaceful.

It would indeed be wonderful if the world operated in such an idealistic manner.

But I am somewhat more pragmatic than that, and what if the regime that wanted what we would freely give, was a regime that wanted to enslave us?

There have always been greedy people. Otherwise we would all live a Utopian existence, and there would be no need for money.

I’m not sure if the figures are right here, but I have no doubt that I will be corrected if they’re not, but if all the wealth in the world was distributed equally among the world’s population, at the end of a week, most people would have little or nothing less, and 5% would have the lion’s share.

And that’s why we need a military.

Direct action against those who act in ways to exploit or harm others ? What if the ones you wish to correct are stronger then you are ? Who decides what needs correcting ? Anarchy would rely on more force then even the current system does, not on others but on each other. For further reading… Homage to Catalonia.

But just because you can’t rely on others doing it, doesn’t mean you can’t practise it yourself.

There is a huge difference between the protective use of force versus the punitive use of force.

Your comment about magic mushrooms is interesting too. There are various substances – magic mushrooms being one – which can help us take a big step back from the “harsh realities of life”, take a look inside ourselves, and find peace with what we see, and with each other.

Given that is the case (and I can attest that it is from personal experience), then is it any wonder that the government and those who want power over us would seek to make access to those substances illegal?

If magic mushrooms could bring us world peace, would that be any bad thing? Is war a more sensible option?

There is no need to steal that which is freely given, and neither would there be any thieves if they knew that they could count on their birthright of a fair share of the Earth’s resources, and control over their own lives.

The reason we have war is that when there is so much inequality in the world, it is easy to find people who will fight to take back what was meant to be theirs.

So let’s start by giving everybody a fair chance at life – which starts by giving up our own privilege, and recognising that we are no better or worse than any other human beings alive, and that we should all have an equal share in the world.

Incidentally, I am not a pacifist. I am just someone who can differentiate the protective use of force versus the punitive use of force.

Do you normally throw insults at other people when you don’t understand their point of view?

If it’s easier for you to write me off as a “cretin” than to take the time to perhaps ask a few more questions to clarify the parts of my opinion which don’t make sense to you, then I’m afraid there’s not much I can do to convince you.

Politics is the art of the possible. Any ideology which relies on every person being nice to each other will fail.