The Geopolitical Cooperation needed to STOP & PREVENT WARS

There is nothing more morbid than fore-playing war, unless you are in the arms-selling business, in which case it is just evil.
Fore-playing war is fore-playing death. Don’t. We are better than that.

War is death. War is loss, for everyone involved. Nobody deserves to die, everyone has the right to life.
(just setting the common ground for the topic, not interested in discussing these here)

There is so much blood thirst in the Israel threads recently. So I’d like this topic to be reserved to news and discussions around ways to stop and prevent killing & wars, including the Israel’s ongoing operation in Gaza.


It’s damn bizarre, isn’t it. I’m not sure what the hell the warmongers are up to, but on the other hand, there probably is some hope.

In the UK (and other countries) they’re talking about conscription to fill in the cannon-fodder shortfall, and there’s been a resounding “FUCK OFF” from the general public. Apart from the obvious fact that the average Brit doesn’t have enough upper-arm strength to hold a weapon, people are having none of it. So that right there is one thing people can do: just don’t comply. There will no doubt be increasingly draconian consequences, but broadly speaking, it’s safe and effective. Certainly safer than getting your head blown off invading Russia, or whatever halfwitted plan is currently on the table.

I think the other thing we can do - and this is a bit more long-term - is to quietly start replacing governments with institutions that work. Over the last few years, governments have made themselves irrelevant; they’re a liability, a danger to the survival of the human race. I think if we can start putting together some basic services to replace the ones that are failing, or being withdrawn/restricted/rationed, or deliberately broken by our elected officials, it will calm people’s worst instincts to lash out at each other. People need to feel secure in the knowledge that they’re not going to starve, or freeze to death, or (if they’re elderly or disabled) be abandoned in their homes. They need the garbage collected. They need to be able to get from A to B. They need to be able to communicate without fear of the thought police bashing the door down. These are things I never thought I’d be discussing in 2024, but we now live in a world where most Western governments seem keen to sabotage the basics of existence, and people are afraid for the future. If society can somehow keep it together, the average person will be far less keen to go off to some foreign country and crack infidel heads.


That goes for anything. Power in numbers. And diligence. People underestimate the powers they have. But fuck are we a rather hard species to organize behind a common goal now a days

I see mobs all over the place. Fortunately, they are usually short term goals. The only really successful long term group I can think of is the Tea Party. Out of Occupy Wall Street, they rose. :rose:

Well, them and Hama, as another example.

A pacifist movement, opposed on principal to all violence?

What you say about fore-playing war. This is very unsettling because you see some of these conflicts being talked about before they even happen. One has to wonder if there is any element of a self fulfilling prophesy at work.


I used to think the plane I was on would crash during take off.

Never did.

1 Like

Mods are neither large nor organized and often change nothing. My point remains :slight_smile:

Mobs are the best America can do for you these days.

I choose mods over mobs, any day


Not the best, isn’t “can” it’s “willing to”, these years and decades not just mere days, and not for me :slight_smile:

Dang it. Can’t edit either.

Start a revolution. A few large scale things have to happen, the least of which is a new national identity needs to be formed, and then taught in schools.

IOTW, governments.

Which was not a mob, but an organized astroturf group.

Call it what you will, they did organize and got elected and hung around. Not my cup of tea, but enough voters seemed to buy into their schtick.

The occupy dummies simply dumbed themselves down further and moved their tents and shit under bridges.


The point here is that governments are beholden to nobody. They can burn a trillion dollars, leave nothing to show for it, and just shrug and say ‘oops, sorry, don’t forget you plebs have to pay that back over the next 200 years!’. There are absolutely zero consequences for gross malfeasance or incompetence. If they choose to stop providing the services that we elect them to provide, or to simply ‘go rogue’, there’s nothing anyone can do. There is no recourse to the Law, no electoral solution - we live in a world where governments can do exactly as they please, and they know it.

If the public start arranging their own public services, they are beholden to each other. There is no bottomless pit of funds, no forgiveness for failure. As taxes go up and up people will have far less time and/or disposable income to contribute to such things (which is, of course, one of the goals of high taxes - nothing like misery and poverty to keep the great unwashed under the boot) so they will have to come up with very creative solutions. It’s going to be a complete pain in the arse. But the way things are going, I don’t see any other choice but to try.

Definitely has a more meaningful outcomes than a mob…

Democratic governments are beholden to their electors. I may not like what right-wing governments do, bur I acknowledge they serve the will of the voters (assholes!).

How exactly are the “people” going to start arranging their own public services? What if somebody decides they don’t want to pay what “the people” decide they should?
You seem to think the people will want a libertarian society (in spite of there never having been one). What if the people decide they want certain services, and decide wealthier people should pay more? Who chooses? Private armies on either side?

Of course they’re not. They demonstrated that amply during “covid”. Nobody was able to do anything to stop them - the courts refused to rein them in, even when it was obvious that laws were being broken. And apart from anything else, governments have enormous power to manipulate public opinion. They can make people believe all sorts of nonsense, and therefore consent to all kinds of atrocities.

If you assume that an election every four years gives people a measure of control, exactly how effective is that? “You wasted sixteen trillion dollars, you assholes, so we’re going to vote you out of office and replace you with a different party that wanted to spend twenty trillion dollars. How do you like them apples, eh?”

What do you do when the choice being offered is between this bad actor and this other bad actor?

How do you prevent a war by waiting four years and then removing the government that started it?

Your argument is complete nonsense. It would be nice if it were true - for example, if it were possible for the people to call for a vote of no confidence in the administration and replace it with a competent one - but in general, it isn’t.

I realise Communists struggle with ideas like “cooperation” and “mutual benefit”, preferring as they do the more reliable application of jackboots, but you may have noticed that people arrange public services all the time. Have you heard of waste recycling companies? Private telecommunications operators? Private medicine? And if people decide they don’t want it, then they don’t pay for it, and don’t receive the service. Of course, it would be wonderful if the government were providing these things. But the point is, they do not intend to. So you either go without, or you make your own arrangements.

Governments have a competitive advantage, especially with things like banking. However, in the (historical) instances where they screw things up despite having every advantage in the world, private enterprise takes over. It never works particularly well because it’s ad-hoc and opposed by officialdom. Far better, IMO, that we try to set things up before governments remove that final Jenga brick. Experimentation and evolution can proceed in a more benign context.

This is more to do with what people don’t want at the moment. Most people don’t want a war with Russia. They don’t want farmers driven off their land so that it can be handed over to bankers. They don’t want schools spending lesson time telling their kids nonsense about this week’s new genders. They don’t want their countries overrun by unknown immigrants with no skills and criminal intent. They don’t want local governments pissing away all their funds and going bankrupt. In short, they don’t want to be impoverished, indoctrinated, fleeced, and bludgeoned into doing things against everyone’s best interests.

Please don’t argue that I’m just making this up and it isn’t happening. It’s possible that you’re insulated from it by wealth, but for ordinary people it’s all very real and up close. There was a news report the other day indicating that people are extracting their own teeth in the UK because they can’t afford a dentist. It’s probably grossly exaggerated, because that’s the MSM these days, but I know from personal anecdote that access to a dentist in the UK is difficult to impossible.

I honestly have no idea what a “libertarian” is, or what you think it is. And it doesn’t matter. There are very few people who want what governments are doing now. In my whole life I’ve never seen as much fear and anger as in the UK today, and I get the impression both the US and Europe are in a similar position.

The question of “private armies” only arises in the specific situation where person A decides he is entitled to some fraction of person A’s wealth, and that it’s reasonable to extract that wealth by force. Ultimately, tax-and-spend societies depend on people recognizing that their contributions genuinely make life better for everyone; in other words, the force isn’t really needed. When people can see that their wealth is being extracted for the benefit of the rich, not society, they get ornery.

Most governments extract far, far more than they need to provide the services that people expect - about 50% of national GDP in Europe. And they don’t even provide the expected services.

There’s a magical thing called “capitalism” whereby person A provides something of value, and person B receives something of equivalent value. It works not because people are selfish, but because they also have empathy; they understand how their needs can overlap with someone else’s. That’s why Communists don’t understand it. They’ve got the selfishness nailed, but the empathy part is missing. I’m pretty sure a parallel economy is possible (and can be made to work better than the usual ‘grey markets’ in failed states). Those who want to participate can do so, and those who don’t can accept the barcode on their forehead, their CBDCs, and their cockroach-protein rations.

11 posts were split to a new topic: Covid stuff, not ww3

I saw a pretty good reaction to that. Something like ‘They want us to die for a government that hates us, so they can earn more money and arrest more people for writing things on twitter’

Yea no, sorry. Doesn’t sound like a good deal.