Toward a workable pacifism

 I am a pacifist–with qualms.

As a working definition, let’s say pacifism is opposition to engaging in warfare under any circumstances.

It is easy for me to dismiss as morally wrong every US war except one: WWII. WWII has every appearance of being a necessary resistance to a clear evil. None of our other wars meet that criterion for me.

But then comes Ukraine.

Like WWII, Ukraine challenges my pacifism to the core. If ever a people had a right to take up arms, this is one of those times. In apparent violation of my own moral compass, I cheer the destruction of Russian forces (read: killing). I instinctively support the US and other countries’ military aid to Ukraine. These are very un-pacifist sentiments.

And yet, as the war drags on and large swaths of the country lie in ruin, I am reminded of why I am a pacifist in the first place.

The US fancies itself the great protector of peace and freedom; yet in most of our wars, we have been the aggressor. It’s easy to oppose that. But when your country is invaded and raped–wouldn’t it be wrong to not take up arms in self-defense? Don’t we need a deterrent to others’ aggression? To put it another way, isn’t pacifism unworkable? To me, this is the only real challenge to pacifism. And let’s admit it: that’s a pretty serious challenge.

I think in Ukraine in 2022, the answer is yes–a pacifist response would be unworkable, and their choices were to fight or submit. The world’s choices are to provide military aid or see Ukraine fall. But maybe it doesn’t need to remain that way. Maybe humans can create an alternative–a workable pacifism. 

You would have to be prepared to accept the unacceptable. Many of the non-violent resisters would likely be raped, tortured and killed. But then, that’s already what happens in war. Would it be possible to devise a non-violent strategy that ultimately rendered military aggression untenable? If so, what would it look like? Would it be worth it?

I think the core requirement is you would need a strategy to make a country ungovernable by a hostile power. You would need to organize and prepare your entire society for the eventuality of a foreign attempt at occupation–and have plenty of non-violent strategies to gum up the works. You would need to train the bureaucrats & technocrats on how to sabotage the occupier’s plans, and train the populace as a whole how to deal with invading soldiers who can torture, kill and rape you. Non-cooperation, sabotage, and non-violent confrontation would be key. Make plans for calling a crowd of 100,000 people to demonstrate & occupy as needed.

Also, it seems such a strategy could theoretically be devised and deployed in advance of disarmament, and disarmament could be done gradually. 

I am not well-read on pacifist theory & philosophy. I expect these questions have been explored by others. Is what I’m suggesting pure nonsense? I’m interested in your thoughts and reading suggestions.

Note: Thanks to Germaine for granting me publishing permission, and sorry it took so long to get this out there.

How the metaverse is going to work us over

Zuckerberg in the early days

(he hasn't changed, but now he’s just very   

guarded about making comments like that) 

A Wash. Post opinion piece by an information scientist at the RAND Corporation opines:

Here’s a plausible scenario that could soon take place in the metaverse, the online virtual reality environments under rapid development by Mark Zuckerberg and other tech entrepreneurs: A political candidate is giving a speech to millions of people. While each viewer thinks they are seeing the same version of the candidate, in virtual reality they are actually each seeing a slightly different version. For each and every viewer, the candidate’s face has been subtly modified to resemble the viewer.

This is done by blending features of each viewer’s face into the candidate’s face. The viewers are unaware of any manipulation of the image. Yet they are strongly influenced by it: Each member of the audience is more favorably disposed to the candidate than they would have been without any digital manipulation.

This is not speculation. It has long been known that mimicry can be exploited as a powerful tool for influence. A series of experiments by Stanford researchers has shown that slightly changing the features of an unfamiliar political figure to resemble each voter made people rate politicians more favorably.

The experiments took pictures of study participants and real candidates in a mock-up of an election campaign. The pictures of each candidate were modified to resemble each participant. The studies found that even if 40 percent of the participant’s features were blended into the candidate’s face, the participants were entirely unaware the image had been manipulated.

In the metaverse, it’s easy to imagine this type of mimicry at a massive scale.

At the heart of all deception is emotional manipulation. Virtual reality environments, such as Facebook’s (now Meta’s) metaverse, will enable psychological and emotional manipulation of its users at a level unimaginable in today’s media.  

I have been working on problems of deception, disinformation and artificial intelligence for close to four decades, including two terms as a program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). We are not even close to being able to defend users against the threats posed by this coming new medium. In virtual reality, malicious actors will be able to take the age-old dark arts of deception and influence to new heights — or depths.  

The metaverse will usher in a new age of mass customization of influence and manipulation. It will provide a powerful set of tools to manipulate us effectively and efficiently. Even more remarkable will be the ability to combine tailored individual and mass manipulation in a way that has never before been possible.  

Society did not start paying serious attention to classical social media — meaning Facebook, Twitter and the like — until things got completely out of hand. Let us not make the same mistake as social media blossoms into the metaverse.

Hm. It sounds like a lot of fun is coming our way in the Metaverse. Make no mistake, if there are better ways to deceive and manipulate us, those free speech tools will be used ruthlessly against us.

I like the way this guy thinks and writes. He sounds like me. Really, no reality modification involved. I could have written the information content of those two highlighted sentences, because they reflect my thinking and beliefs. Honestly, who else calls propaganda the dark arts or talks about defense against the dark arts?* 

* IMFO (in my firm opinion), teaching defense against the dark arts is urgently needed in American public schools. 

For better or worse, my mind is not alone. In addition to the sagacious herd here at Dissident Politics, there are at least some fellow travelers out there in the real universe. 

Don’t trust him or you will be 

fooled, used and betrayed

A short summary of the current US Supreme Court

That speaks for itself. Too bad it's all true. 

Acknowledgement: Thanks for Freeze Peach for brining this to my attention.

Are Americans are waking up to the Republican Party's threat of fascism?

Newsweek writes:

For the first time in recent months, registered voters in the U.S. say that the top issue on their minds is the threat facing democracy, according to a poll from NBC released Sunday. Previous NBC polls in March and May showed that the top issue on the minds of those surveyed was cost of living.

The poll this time found that 21 percent of voters ranked "threats to democracy" as the most critical matter facing the country, while 16 percent chose "cost of living," which ranked as second. In third was "jobs and the economy," with 14 percent.  

The poll's responses regarding the investigations into Trump's conduct fell largely along party lines, with 92 percent of Democratic voters and 61 percent of independents saying they believe the investigations should continue, while only 21 percent of Republican voters support the ongoing investigations, according to NBC.

Didn't expect that. Maybe I misjudged the American people's apparent lack of concern about democracy. I hope so. Poll results in November should clarify that bit of personal confusion. But, at least I didn't misjudge Republican voters. They are all in on fascism, religious and racial bigotry and corruption.