Enemies - how to treat them

tim wood

Some time ago I watched a pretty good film, The King's Choice. In it is a short masterful scene, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ79i11JSnU

The history is that the Nazi invasion of Norway in WW2 included attempting to sneak an invading force by sea into Oslo harbour. And this happened! And the scene depicts it apparently with much accuracy. Turn on subtitles, increase volume. (And Youtube may also have listed a more-in-depth separate animation of the same events, also worth a watch.)

In the scene is a line that has stuck to me and grown. "No warning, no hesitation - these are enemies!" A model of clarity, simplicity, decisiveness.

Most people are not our enemies, but that they disagree with us on some matter, and we with them. And we talk through issues to resolve differences. At the same time it's clear - to those with eyes to see, who have taken the lesson and learned one way or another - that not all are friends with similar basic interests. Rather these are people who are already at war with us, already our enemies; already fighting against us, who observe no principle, scruple at nothing.

It's no great surprise that some other countries are enemies. Among friends there are always the benefits of friendship, and even between enemies there can be enlightened self-interest. The important point being that the players know who and what they are.

In country, however, we seem automatically to classify everyone as a friend - meaning we share basic common understandings and treat of each other civilly, decently, honestly, for both the common and greater good. Of course individuals fail of this, the failure often subject to criminal and civil penalty. In any case we seem always to presume.

Which, as the circumstance in the film makes clear, is a fundamental mistake. And it's a mistake that in the US is made hundreds of time each day by most of news media in that they treat Trump and his as "friends," while in fact they are enemies.

My point being that it's best to recognize who our enemies are, and that they are enemies. And being enemies, it is a mistake to treat them as if they weren't, because any such mistake, unless it accords with the enemy's self-interest, will just be something they can use as an enemy.

An example from today suffices: Obama remarked on Trump's abuse of the USPS. Jared Kushner was interviewed and asked to comment. The first words out of his mouth were that of course the president is doing everything in his power to support the Postal Service and give it everything it needs. With lies like this, if you regard the liar as any kind of friend at all, then you do not need enemies. In fact the big lie - and Kushner's is such a lie - is a calling card of an enemy.

We have, then, enemies. But what to do? For most of us, to vote. For many, political activism. But what we can all do is recognize the enemy, and call him or her out, "no warning, no hesitation." Anything less is to open our homes to destructive vermin - which we have done.

In the film, the correct response was 11-inch guns and torpedoes. The founding fathers gave us the 2d amendment as an equivalent remedy. Some people think it may - could - come to that. Now is the time to think about it.

Philosophim

If Russia were found to be stealing our mailboxes and destroying our mail sorting machines, there wouldn't be a Republican in office who wouldn't declare Russia an enemy. But of course, since its the president of the party, they remain quiet.

And I think that is the nature of enemies. It is about one's self interest without consideration of care about robbing another person's interest. When it is in the interest of Republican's to come out against the president, they will. When it is within their interest to remain quiet, they will.

So in this case, yes, Trump and the Republican's are the enemies of the American people. We still have elections however. We still have Democrats in the office. If you live in a Republican district, you can write your congressman and MAKE it their self-interest to fight the president on this.

It is not that you do not have options to handle enemies. And you can follow those without "recourse or hesitation". Go post on social media. Fight. But it does not have to resort to violence if the underlying systems support non-violent options. Violence is a recourse in America, but its underlying systems leave plenty of bite to non-violent means.

Pfhorrest

But it does not have to resort to violence if the underlying systems support non-violent options. Violence is a recourse in America, but its underlying systems leave plenty of bite to non-violent means. — Philosophim

More to the point, violent solutions are unlikely to work when non-violent democratic ones are available but don’t work. If you could magically get enough people to vote the right way, you could fix all the problems in America. If you can’t even get enough people to vote, though, then you’ll have a hell of a time getting enough people to put their lives on the line for a violent rebellion to succeed.

It’s not like someone could just assassinate Trump and them all the problems would be solved. Or even all of the top politicians, in both major parties. The people who voted them into office would still be there and would just vote similar people into office again.

This is a war for the hearts and minds of America. We are our own enemies.

fdrake

Political enemies? (Drunk manifesto)

If you think a person is your enemy, like you really hate them for personal reasons. That means you've met them, that means you're in similar enough social circles to share structural risks. Every structural risk is a sharable cause. For the populist right; you have more in common with immigrants and the underclass than your leaders. For the populist left; remember you're systems, your actions together speak louder than words alone, get your ass out there however you can. Lethargy is its own special form of hell.

If you think there's only one way to solve a problem and the rest are fucked, regressive or otherwise bullshit - if you agree on the problem, so long as you impose aggregate risks on the conditions that make the problem it will convulse or topple. Keep caring about the same things together. If something is ineffective but it is the only thing you can do do it anyway. That's climbing the stairs out of hell.

If your role is supportive - parents betting with love on their children, teachers who want to educate, honest philanthropists, democratisers and just regulators - you decrease the life costs imposed by the problems you face. It doesn't even matter if you know what they are, you are structural resilience against the suffering imposed by shared risks. That imposes a cost on the costs imposed on you. That's being a net positive all else held equal.

If a person poses enough of a structural risk, impose costs in the most effective way you can muster. There are good reasons states disappear dissidents in vans or body bags or prisons. What applies to their exercise of power applies to yours, the only difference is scale and validation laundering (manufactured consent/indifference).

Take an honest look at yourself and see where you fit into the scheme of things - I'm wearing clothes sanitized ideologically and literally from the blood of the hands that knitted them. Whenever you are complicit, own it, and if you want justice you want your complicity to end and will do whatever you cannot abide not to. I am rotten, rot makes compost.

tim wood

More to the point, violent solutions are unlikely to work when non-violent democratic ones are available but don’t work. — Pfhorrest

Fair point. When the Iranians took over the American Embassy and held almost 500 hostages, William F. Buckley wrote that Congress should immediately declare war on Iran. It was not, he explained, that he thought a shooting war should commence or would be a best solution, but rather that a declaration of war would be the correct statement of the relationship of the two countries at that time.

in a similar vein, I think it's time to call out enemies as enemies, as they are enemies. Doesn't mean I want to kill them - well, mostly not - but if nothing else it may warn them away from me - if nothing else.

Outlander

"No warning, no hesitation - these are enemies!" A model of clarity, simplicity, decisiveness. — tim wood

Rash judgement has been known to create an environment ripe for mistakes.

Take the Alamo, for example. When sorely needed reinforcements arrived in the dead of night they were mistaken for enemy combatants and shot at, at least one wounded.

tim wood

↪Outlander

How do you know the judgment was rash? (And I cannot find any reference to the Alamo's being reinforced. Can you provide?)

To be sure, any decision can have unwelcome consequences, A famous example being the combined decisions that led to "Peace in our time!"

Edgy Roy

No warning, no hesitation - these are enemies!" A model of clarity, simplicity, decisiveness.
— tim wood

This seems like a good model for making a decision with regards to an enemy, except when you explore the actual results that can occur due to 'no hesitation'. My favorite example has to be Custer at the Little Big Horn. He correctly recognized his enemy, and without hesitation he attacked that enemy.

The result is commonly known as "Custer's Last Stand".

Maybe I'm confusing the matter, but "no hesitation" to me means "no evaluation", which excludes all the concepts of situational awareness like scouting, or planning or determining strength of the enemy, or weakness, or any effort to minimize losses.

Maybe it's a clear model for a perspective, certainly Custer used it. His attack was simple and decisive.

It may be a valid theory, but for those intending to engage an enemy, it is not a strategy I would advise..

Tzeentch

The veil of civilization is thin indeed.

Metaphysician Undercover

If you've been brought up with good Christian values, you will of course, love your enemies.

tim wood

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Hmm. The word was ἀγαπᾱτε (agapate, Matt 5:44), and in Cor.1, 13:13, ἀγάπη (agape). In Matthew, imperative. But were the Christian God and Jesus all that loving of their enemies? The word is often translated "charity," which seems to me to make both a different and better sense. I take the joke, though.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪tim wood

It's no joke. Jesus taught love your neighbour, even if your neighbour happens to be your enemy. That's why one of the primary principles of Catholicism is forgiveness, and confession follows from forgiveness.

tim wood

↪Metaphysician Undercover

No argument here, other than "love" doesn't quite capture agape.

I never gave the Bible much thought, nor do now. But I have of late learned that the number of people who read and understand the Bible is far - stunningly - fewer than one might expect.

turkeyMan

Some time ago I watched a pretty good film, The King's Choice. In it is a short masterful scene, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ79i11JSnU

The history is that the Nazi invasion of Norway in WW2 included attempting to sneak an invading force by sea into Oslo harbour. And this happened! And the scene depicts it apparently with much accuracy. Turn on subtitles, increase volume. (And Youtube may also have listed a more-in-depth separate animation of the same events, also worth a watch.)

In the scene is a line that has stuck to me and grown. "No warning, no hesitation - these are enemies!" A model of clarity, simplicity, decisiveness.

Most people are not our enemies, but that they disagree with us on some matter, and we with them. And we talk through issues to resolve differences. At the same time it's clear - to those with eyes to see, who have taken the lesson and learned one way or another - that not all are friends with similar basic interests. Rather these are people who are already at war with us, already our enemies; already fighting against us, who observe no principle, scruple at nothing.

It's no great surprise that some other countries are enemies. Among friends there are always the benefits of friendship, and even between enemies there can be enlightened self-interest. The important point being that the players know who and what they are.

In country, however, we seem automatically to classify everyone as a friend - meaning we share basic common understandings and treat of each other civilly, decently, honestly, for both the common and greater good. Of course individuals fail of this, the failure often subject to criminal and civil penalty. In any case we seem always to presume.

Which, as the circumstance in the film makes clear, is a fundamental mistake. And it's a mistake that in the US is made hundreds of time each day by most of news media in that they treat Trump and his as "friends," while in fact they are enemies.

My point being that it's best to recognize who our enemies are, and that they are enemies. And being enemies, it is a mistake to treat them as if they weren't, because any such mistake, unless it accords with the enemy's self-interest, will just be something they can use as an enemy.

An example from today suffices: Obama remarked on Trump's abuse of the USPS. Jared Kushner was interviewed and asked to comment. The first words out of his mouth were that of course the president is doing everything in his power to support the Postal Service and give it everything it needs. With lies like this, if you regard the liar as any kind of friend at all, then you do not need enemies. In fact the big lie - and Kushner's is such a lie - is a calling card of an enemy.

We have, then, enemies. But what to do? For most of us, to vote. For many, political activism. But what we can all do is recognize the enemy, and call him or her out, "no warning, no hesitation." Anything less is to open our homes to destructive vermin - which we have done.

In the film, the correct response was 11-inch guns and torpedoes. The founding fathers gave us the 2d amendment as an equivalent remedy. Some people think it may - could - come to that. Now is the time to think about it. — tim wood

I'm certainly not stating that violence is never the answer depending on how you interpret the Bible, however one way to bless and curse your enemy at the same time is to pray to god xyz that they become alot smarter or astronomically smarter. I don't feel that if our enemies outmaneuver us that that is the worst thing that can happen. This is certainly not a hard and fast rule, however intelligent People tend to doubt themselves more. Some one might say that intelligent People aren't always nice but the thing to remember is there are alot of poor People who limit themselves due to their excessive observational skills. I'm not saying its neccessarily beneficial to society for People to be depressed but when everyone is trying to see things from others perspectives, things often go more smoothly for more People. If our enemies outmaneuver us due to their intelligence, i would argue that this can benefit us due to the fact that it is better to be defeated quickly than to die a very slow death. I believe in a particular god largely due to pan-psychism and i believe we are all figments of that god's imagination. I believe that god is 100% justified in his depression and he is simply trying to make the best of things with nothing really to other than imagine scenarios for all eternity.

Metaphysician Undercover

No argument here, other than "love" doesn't quite capture agape. — tim wood

In any translation I've heard of, Jesus taught love, not agape. So I think it's really the other way around, "agape" doesn't quite capture "love".

tim wood

In any translation I've heard of, — Metaphysician Undercover

Faith, hope, charity. I'm sure you're aware that no translation is the Bible, for a pretty obvious reason. The Greek said agape, he meant agape. Yours and my problems with that nothing he was concerned with. Or maybe we know better than he?

Enemies - how to treat them

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions