Becoming Fool of Love: Polizei, Dynamics... and pacifism?

Another retroactively posted blog:

---

In a Underground train station

I've been thinking about the police a whole lot recently. I wonder about the Oakland demonstrations. I wonder -once more- about who the police is supposed to work for. I wonder about the choices individuals make, i.e. why do they choose the police?

I wonder if there is really a "us & them".

Of course there is a "they". (And of course, we are One, too.) They: own satellites. They: own resources. They: have "the power." (Marx was right.)

They don't have authority, however. They have shown that they know no better. But power, that they have. (I think it is crucial that we make a distinction between power and authority.)

Advertisement on hand paper towels
(Yes, this is random.)

When I came back from Leipzig, the man who gave me a ride (through mitfahrgelegenheit, a wonderful rideshare website, which is quite a display of how trusting and generous people can be!) was… an army sergeant!

He was very friendly. Good energy. And he appeared to be quite open-minded even. He showed genuine interest in getting to know the story of his passengers (there were two of us), and he shared that he too dreams of travelling for more than a month at a time.

The three of us chatted all the way to Berlin, and since we also wanted to hear his story, we asked him about his job in the army.

"There are two types of armies in Germany", he explained. "We have the one that protects the people in the country, and another to go abroad and work there, like in Kozovo or Afghanistan for example."

"The draft was abolished a few years ago," he added.

I asked him why, and he said: "Borders within Europe are safe now, we don't need that many people anymore."

I took a pause before asking the question that was really burning in me, because I thought I was taking a chance by potentially engaging on a topic that could reveal our political/ideological disagreement. But I guess I also felt it was safe enough, and a golden opportunity, so I asked him as diplomatically as I can (which is, I believe, actually pretty well!): "Can I ask you something? What about what happens when there are demonstrations? Who are the people dispatched there? Is it the police, or the army, or what?"

"Ah.. those are.." He searched for the English word.. " Riots Police. They go to football (soccer) matches and all.." But he knew what I was referring to so he continued: "And also protests about nuclear energy, and now there's this whole occupy thing…"

"Yeah… that's what I'm thinking about. And you know, like when the Leipzig Protests were going on." I said. "I just can't understand who these people are working for."

He quickly answered: "They protect the system."

There was a short silence, but he didn't seem to be feeling bad or guilty. (And that's good, because it wasn't my intention.) Rather, I enjoyed how we had named something and were now together left to make sense of it.

Protecting the system. Maintaining "order". Defending the status quo.

Yet aren't people and societies constantly evolving?

Aren't people legitimate in asking for institutional changes then? Especially when a given system fails to secure well-being for the majority. Especially when the few who get to make important structural decisions cannot figure out how to provide stability.

Isn't that what we all want after all? Don't we all inherently seek a certain level of stability?" (I'm open to being refuted, as always!)

Are they - those who refuse to take part in the co-creating of a better, more sustainable future - simply acting out of ignorance?

Or are we preserving the inequalities of the system out of pure malice?! What a sad thought.

Besides, too much inequality will bring any system out of balance, and is thus not advantageous to anyone trying to keep their status as "king of the mountain."

Perhaps it is too difficult for humans to find balance - consciously, that is. Perhaps it is impossible in fact. Perhaps we are meant to go through series of revolutions in order to move forward. I just happen to think that it's a shame we shed so much blood in the process. And it's a shame that some humans have to kill other humans, and suffer from PTSD for the rest of their lives.

I told the sergeant about my dilemma concerning pacifism. "I have thought about these things for quite some time now, and I'd say that I consider myself a pacifist. But I'm open to conversation about this, cause even within myself I go back and forth sometimes."

I looked at him (he wore a camouflage uniform), showing that I was genuinely curious about his thoughts on the subject.

"I believe that we each fight a war inside of us. That's what makes us grow. So war is part of evolution."

How Nietzschean! I told him I would think about that one.

I thought about those of us who have been working to transcend the war within ourselves, about accepting all parts of ourself. For I strongly believe now that each side has a message for me, as a whole, complex, changing being. Each side, each conflicting emotion, has something valuable it is trying to defend. I cannot silence or repress either of them, for it will only backfire.

One last thing he said, which I liked, was: " It's okay for the people to demonstrate, as long as they don't use violence." He paused. "That's the difference. The riot police has license to violence, but only when they are threatened." The guy in the back seat made a comment. "They just have different standards as to what is threatening I guess." "Well, there are a minority. And that's threatening," I said.

"i wonder… perhaps that's what infuriates the masses," I thought out loud, "the fact that they are not allowed to use violence.."

How can I say this while calling myself a pacifist? Well, I call it musings, options, perspectives.

I do believe that nonviolence has an evolutionary significance.

I do think that living in the nuclear age calls for a reconsideration of the violent/reactive behaviors we claim to be "natural", that perhaps the time has come for humanity to think up new ways to see differences and to resolve conflicts.