Pastel Pacifism

Pastel Pacifism is a self-insert based on the "Give Peace A Chance" community, created in February of 2020. It is Anarchist (Factions)/ Liberal (Factions)/ Totalitarian (Factions). Environmentalist (Mostly), Welfarist, Pacifist (Factions),  Socialist, and Culturally Left-wing  (Factions)/ Center-Right.

Beliefs
more detailed stuff about my views

[[File:Reformer.png]] Approach [[File:Revolution.png]]
I do not think that agressive shouting, brutality and mass murder or executions on every corner would get us further than another dictatorship and the perseverance (if not worsening) of the status-quo. You can't liberate me by putting a pistol to my head and screaming that I'm free, you won't make me happy by beating me into submission and deciding what's best for me. I am a pacifist and I sincerely believe that peaceful reforms and dialogue are the main tools in the process of the establishing of the new society

[[File:Welf.png]] Wealth redistribution [[File:Care.png]]
In a new, free Society we should redistribute wealth by the economic participation  by each member of the community and collecting resources on a volountary basis in the communes and help those misfortunate.

[[File:World Federalism2.png]] Pan-Humanism [[File:Humanismpix.png]]
In the new stateless world It'll be simply necessary for our communes to cooperate and share with each other in order to stay alive and avoid any and all conflicts between us. Particular parts of the human culture that in today's terms might be described as a 'National culture' shouldn't be destroyed, but rather treated with the "Museum principle".

[[File:PacSynd.png]] New economic order [[File:Partip.png]]
In my conception economy should be organized through labour unions and co-ops with no person owning the means of production, but rather workers owning their own workplace and cooperating in order to develop the means and create better conditions.

[[File:Pac.png]] Non-Violence and Pacifism [[FIle:Pacifist.png]]
Do I even need to explain this one..?

[[File:Ghandi.png]] Equality and Compassion [[File:Welf.png]]
In the world without states people would organize and develop systems with a core principle of "Sharing is caring" and building a new society on the foundation of cooperation, help and co-working. Humanity won't survive if it would live according to the predatory principles of quote-on-quote "Natural selection", the only way for us to move forward is working together and relying on each other.

[[File:Envi.png]] Harmony with Mother Earth [[File:WaterEnvi.png]]
Humanity is a part of the nature, and thereby in order to solve the climate change we have to learn how to live in harmony and compromise with nature, without solutions that only seem legit, but in the end would only harm. Anthropocentrism is dead wrong in its idea of putting human above anyone and anything else as a "King of the hill" and I belive that we need to reject it and move to more harmony-centric approach, like Taoist and Buddhist  ones

[[File:Ghandi.png]] Anti-Machiavellianism [[File:Antimach.png]]
I believe that core principles of machiavellianism led to most of our problems. The goal has never justified and won't ever justify any means. If you think that now people are "aware" of this just try to watch an average political debate and you'll notice how debaters just tend to forget about this problem. An eye for an eye only makes the world blind. This is something that we especially need to remember today

Comments

 * - "There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender. Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.  You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all."