King, Ghandi, Non-Violence, Theories For Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia

On the subject of Ghandi and King--I am not certain that they were advocates of non-violence existentially so much as brilliant political revolutionaries who understood the time and circumstance they were living in politically. They were able to assert their political aspiration through civil disobediance when they could not have achieved their objectives through violence.

There is the path of action and of inaction to achieve the way of enlightenment helpful for social advancement. Sartre and some Calvinists too wrote about absolute intellectual freedom to not comply with the orders of others as being the freedom in all things to say no. That is an ideal applying to mind if not body when someone tosses one over the top ropes into the crowd, and perhaps to mind as well if scopolamine and other mind control drugs are used for coercive purposes, yet the political modification of social tensors toward non-violent and purposefully directed progressive courses may just require intellect and will. It is easy to get too subjective in these things perhaps and lose track of the more challenging situation like in Afghanistan today as well as Pakistan with the Taliban, terrorists, Al Qa'eda, Pustun issues with non-Pustuns, India, Russia and the challenges of getting a railroad built from the trans-Siberian railway to Uzbekistan and on to Kabul, Islamabad, and India in order that Afghanistan be not commercially isolated. The baksheesh to construct a quality rail line and keep terrorists from destroying it may be far less costly than sustaining foreign military through other means.

That region of the world apparently views patronage systems as normal and along tribal lines as well so bribery may be more of a norm and fact than an honest central government in Pakistan or Afghanistan usually. If these are usually crooked players then attaining non-violence generally may require a better perspective about how to bring the issues to a stable state.

Collective non-violence in trans-religious, supra-national realms with assymetric conflict and unstable governments require meta-structural, innovative methods of non-violent political transitions from supernumery logical agencies all too commonly unavailable. We might hope that government in D.C. was more intelligent and not so willing to be half of a drunken brawl in a manner of speaking, nor so trusting that the region's domestic disputants will not return to violence as soon as the police leave. Pakistan wants to secure Afghanistan with a Taliban so it can have an ally of Sunni for the north and against India as well. Constructing temporal non-violence requires some serious thought and will to achieve.

One must always chuckle a little at the 1968 Riot Commission Report of L.B.J. on the Michigan National Guard in Detroit contrasting the number of shells the national guard fired at mostly non-existent targets (thousands and thousands) vs. the few that the replacement 101st airborne used. I think it unlikely that either Ghandi or King would have transferred their methods to other places and times where it wasn't regarded for political reasons of the ruling power as right to give up exclusivity and inequality of certain rights or at least to compel other people to comply with equality socially for all of certain rights if they have 'stood up' as politicians are wont to say.

On the topic of Jesus being crucified with violence--that was the representational epitome of social conflict in a sense. God could experience for-himself the problem of evil that mankind lives with from their own actions. His atoning sacrifice is how grace is given unto those who accept Jesus as their savior. The grace is entirely donated and not merited by anyone--only faith is required.

Humanity being entirely wicked naturally just cannot be trusted in an eternal state. God has renormalized the human spin of those that rely upon his spiritual quantum reorganization unto perfect balance with the will of God. Humanity without God may suffer the most violence of all ultimately-that of being eternally bereft of God having to fend for themselves as eternal spirits in absolute oblivion.

Yet what could be done for them anyway when they have no faith and do not accept the ultimate sacrifice that God made for them? In the eternal divine economy how much should god sustain those that do not have belief in him?