[Peace-discuss] Nihilist analysis

[Bob Illyes]

I find the nihilist analysis that periodically shows up on this list (from 
folks who seem to be doing nothing except trying to convince other folks 
that they can do nothing) to be completely bizarre, i.e., lacking in any 
sort of common sense or contact with reality. This analysis is often hidden 
behind a bewildering smoke-screen of claimed conspiracies, which distracts 
both the author and the reader from common sense and ordinary facts.

The biggest fallacy consists of variants of "why vote- one vote is not 
likely to change an election?" This is a half-truth, a red herring. To the 
extent that people accept this as a reason to not vote, voting does become 
irrelevant. To the extent they do not accept it, individual voting (as 
opposed to voting by small organized blocks with vested interests), 
determines leadership. The effect of the argument is to cause individuals 
to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves.

Let's make partial a list:

1) Your vote likely has no effect. It's just one out of a large number.
2) Peaceful demonstrations have no effect- they only change a few minds.
3) One-on-one conversation only changes one mind, sometimes, and therefore 
has virtually no political effect.
4) Running for office has almost no effect, because vested interests 
control the legislatures.

All of these become full rather than half-truths only if large numbers of 
people accept them. They are half-truths because they completely ignore the 
social context in which we act. Going down my list:

1) There are a large number of informed voters with good intentions. They 
will determine the results of most elections unless they are convinced 
individually to not vote.
2 & 3) For every mind changed, there is another person working to change 
more minds. This snowballs quickly. If I were the only person possessing 
facts that supported a reconsideration of political direction, and 
convinced one other person of them, the number of people in the world 
possessing those facts would double. In ten times the time it took to 
change one mind, this would snowball to about 1000 minds changed. In 20, up 
to 1,000,000 minds changed. The number would be somewhat less than this, of 
course, because not all folk's personal circumstances would allow them to 
pass on the information.
4) This is so patently false that I don't think I need to argue that it is 
true only if honest people believe it and don't run for office.

Don't let our substantial crop of nihilists wear you down, AWAREistas. 
Their theories are a full explanation of most evil, although they generally 
don't grasp this and it shouldn't be held against them personally. Once the 
people are convinced to disenfranchise themselves voluntarily, the Devil 
owns us all.

Bob