The loophole in nonviolence that no one will tell you

7/29/2025

Pacifism is hailed as a movement for making change and progress without violence, and even though it has its upsides, thousands, if not millions, of its advocates tend to overestimate the potency of the idea; presumably to sell the impression that Pacifism/nonviolence is strong; it advocates proclaim themselves to be virtuous and principled, convincing themselves and their listeners that they can change how the government works all without any attacks on unethical politicians, all in a bid to prove the effectiveness of pacifistic/non-violent cause and positively impact the narrative surrounding the idea. This is both delusional and absurd; pacifism/non-violence has one loophole that its advocates overlook: appeasement (especially appeasement toward offenders against victims). It’s at this point where things begin to take an ugly turn: Why is appeasement considered a loophole, one might ask? Appeasement seeks peace by making deals with aggressive enemies to avoid war, while pacifism/nonviolence denounces and condemns any and every form of violence. It’s possible for an unethical politician to appease the civilians the oppress in their own country. Since appeasement also seeks peace, it’s easy for pacifists/nonviolent activists to play into unethical politicians who allieviates the concerns of their nonviolent enemies, since the latter is no real threat to them: A pacifist/nonviolent group will demand that the government take any accountability for crimes against humanity, high costs for living, and/or low-paying jobs Most of the time, these pleas will be ignored, but in the rare case that these concerns are heeded, it’s only a short-term victory at best before the status quo returns, or a meaningless slap on the back at worst; even if pacifists somehow managed to succeed in fighting” unethical politicians and employ several notable strategies (The morality play, The Lobbying tactic, The selection of alternatives, and generalized disobedience, all of which were discussed by anarchist Peter Gelderloos) to hold the latter accountable, the latter party can simply have a private metting amongst themselves, enact some “noble” plans that will alleviate some of the pacifists’s concerns, while devising some new unsavory plans that go under the protesters’s radar. When they come out front, the politicians will enact those plans, calming down the protesters for some time. They’ll even remove a few unethicsl government officials to better keep up appearances while replacing them with new ones (all without the old ones having a trial). Either way, the protest is done, and the pacifists are no longer on the backs of unethical politicians, and the wool is pulled over their heads. Since pacifists dislike violence, they play right into appeasement politics: they’re easy targets, not just for government officials to dominate and oppress with draconian rules at a later time, but simple to deceive in the long run.

One scenraio of appeasement is when a politician or activist defends one group killing members of another group in cold blood, and to protect the first group from the second, redirect the culpability from the first group to the second (even if the second group did every step to handle things legitimately without bloodshed, they’ll still be blamed anyway.) to appease the former, giving them free rides without any punishment whatsoever.

There’s a source of confusion I’ve come to realize Saturday: People have an odd tendency to mistake appeaser for pacificts in the narrative sense; the similarities are understanable, but the strife it caused cannot be ignored: Christians think Jesus was a pacifist since he’s forgiven thieves, murderers, and usurers but he’s really an appeaser who only wanted to avoid any violence directed toward him. Even if this narrative wasn’t real, Jesus knew his followers would kill him and his followers and expose how much of a liar he is. Because people didn’t understand the difference between pacifism and appeasement (Both of which leads to the same dead end anyway.), Jewsus’s suicidal teachings have persisted for two millennia and has spread to the entire world, with people like Gandhi (an actual example of the above paragraph), and Muhamed. Appeasement can be deceptive and underhanded, and the mainstream media can use them interchangeably within the narrative.

Of course, if the nonviolence/pacifism doesn’t play into appeasement, it certainly leads into it.

In conclusion, I’d say Jews, Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Jesus, Gandhi, and any other “pacifists” don't deserve to be celebrated in history.