RE: Hello...my name is Everitt Mickey and
It doesn't matter if you're for zero slavery, if someone can enslave you with force, you can chant whatever "zero slavery" slogan you come up with, it will not change the fact that your slavery is not the result of people agreeing that they are slaves indeed, but people who don't care what you chant sing or what attitude you have, they will beat you to death or starve you. How many defiant slaves do you think it takes? 80%? If all of them agree that they are against slavery, what consequence does that have on their slavery?
If you're for Zero Aggression in an Aggression Tolerant society, it means, I assume, that you don't put up with Aggression. To be for Zero Aggression, therefore, means taking definitive action and not singing or chanting any ideolog propagandist bullshit especially if you're trying to convince the Slave Owner that they should believe in Zero Slavery principle and not enslave people, it's a self defeating stance because first it is clearly against initiating force against those that initiate force themselves, and to tolerate aggression while chanting that you're for zero aggression is as useless and meaningless as the slaves all singing and deying en mass "zero slavery" because their opponent has no conscience. Zero Aggression is juxtaposed with it's impotence in the face of those that aggress. Declaring you're for zero aggression is simply playing for the crowd.
You do know that the zero aggression principle is not a pacifistic stance?
Because you say:
This is absolutely no true If you think this is what the zero aggression principle is or means you don't understand it.
First, to make something clear, if you defend yourself against an attacker ,aggresor (the one initiating violence) you are not the initiator of violence (you are not an attacker or agressor), you defend yourself.
You may defend yourself against those who attack you. I would even say I must, where I can, defend myself (and eventual others) against the state aggressors and other aggressors or aggressions.
This can have many different forms.
(defending is not aggressing)
I'm not convincing the slave owner that would be ridiculous.
I'm trying to get through to the other slaves that think they ought to be slaves.
It's a bit like being born in a giant cult. If you want to take a aim at destroying the cult it would not help to convince the cult leaders, they do not believe their own story (well maybe they do but that's not the point), you try to deprogram the cult members,
the believers, if no one believe the BS of the cult leaders there is no cult.
Except that if you confront anyone who's for Zero Aggression on how they are for Zero Aggression in an Aggression Tolerant society they will never advocate initiating force against the aggressors who use force.
The point is that regardless of how many are "against slavery" or "against aggression" nobody will be free when aggressors and slave owners and their henchmen walk around aggressing by design and hold the power by force. Defense goes all the way, either you're actively cutting down any and all aggressors that are openly and effortlessly walking around or you might as well tell slaves that they ought not to be slaves, everyone KNOWS that already, it's irrelevant to the situation which requires aggression itself, being on the defensive then from the attacks of the state requires complete and total war against the state or it makes Zero Aggression only Tolerant of Aggression.
Thank you for the reply.
Most of the people don't know that, and most will defend the state and even other agressors.
The following I write just to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
It requires violence or better said force?
What do you mean with complete and total war?
And how are you now at war?
do you shoot all the bureaucrats, politicians, judges ,police, military, and all that voted for them and want them to boss them around and worse you around?.......for if you are at war with the state you are at war with almost everyone.
That's my point. Being for Zero Aggression means not being Tolerant of Aggressors, considering that most archate by proxy or directly through their "job" that means Complete, Total War against the innumerable aggressors.
Ok . One question I still have though is; what do you mean with Total War. What does that consist of.
I think you do not mean the thing I have in mind when I think of war. You just would not be alive today.
If you are for Zero Aggression, then that means you do not tolerate aggression, the reason why it would require Complete, Total War, overt and subversive war, the reason is that the Slave Owner will never listen to the kumbaya, the alphabet organizations will never "reform", that's what Zero Aggression means, fucking their shit up Fight Club and Immortal Technique style, Zero Aggression dictates that they deserve it.
I know that, I thought I explained already.
You think, that the people that say they believe in the zero aggression principle, expect that the slave owners will listen to kumbaya and the alphabet organizations will reform? Because I don't believe that.
That is what the ZAP means yeah They initiate violence all day every day.
I believe covert is the only way, for me, for now, there are so few of us here. In the US it's different there the overt way is more part of the culture.
I'm really sorry that I have such a hard time understanding you, and that I ask so many questions, but I really want to understand what you are saying.
Thanks for the patient reply :)