Geoff Thompson

Dave Briggs: So, to summarise, you would advocate the intelligent use of violence?

Geoff Thompson: Yes. Unfortunately I still haven’t found an alternative to actually being physical with somebody who is trying to be physical with you. Again I’m talking about the fact that when you feel that your live is threatened, when you feel like your going to be attacked. The scale can go from talking somebody down, all through the verbal dissuasion and loopholing, to non-harmful restraint, if you’ve got the skill, to harmful restraint, applying an arm-bar or a choke to restrain someone, through to actually striking, but using minimal force to ward somebody of, or up to lethal force. Some situation unfortunately start with lethal force. Three guys in an alley that pull knives, that’s lethal force straight away. Therefore you would have to use lethal force just to neutralise that. Again, that’s not what I’m saying people should do, I’m saying that’s the choice they’ve got. We’re all intelligent and we make our own choice. For me though, to allow somebody to attack me is not pacifism, because I’m allowing death. If they hurt me I’ve allowed that to happen, allowed them to be volatile towards me and create either death of cells or death of the organism. If it was my death, or I ended up in hospital, that kind of thing would cause a molecular change in the lives of everyone who cares for me and would in-turn kill cells within their own body due to their grief. So perhaps I’m allowing a hundred people that love me to be hurt just because one person wants to attack me maliciously with bad intent. In that respect, by letting someone just attack you is very selfish and its also allowing death. Even if you’ve just got fear, if someone makes you feel fearful, that creates a molecular change within the body, it suppresses the immune system and some of the chemicals that are released during flight or fight actually kill brain cells and smooth muscle cells. So just the effect of someone making you fearful is killing, so you’ve got to ask yourself are you going to allow somebody to do that to you or are you going to neutralise it in as minimal a way as you can. So pacifism in that respect isn’t the answer. We have to look at our higher echelon communication. If you don’t think that this works you just have to look at the way Governments operate, the greatest thinking brains in the free world, what do they do when they feel threatened by minority groups. For example, say there is a Dictator that wants to take over the world, perhaps like with Saddam Hussein. What did those great thinking brains deem reasonable force when they were threatened. They tried to use verbal dissuasion, they mediated, they talked, they postured and loopholed, they give him honourable exits, they tried to give him ways out. Next they began posturing, by sending planes over. Then they used minimal force were they dropped a few bombs to scare them. Then they began killing people, followed by finally declaring war, which is the greatest expression of violence known to man. So facing a guy down an alley is just war in microcosm, it’s exactly the same. In global war millions of people are killed, whereas in one-to-one combat millions of cells are killed, or one complete organism is killed. You’ve only got to look to the greatest thinking minds of the free world and they will tell you exactly the same thing as I’m telling you now. It doesn’t make it palatable, but I don’t think it has to be palatable, it just has to be survival, we just have to survive and if we can find as many alternatives as we can to violence then we must do that. I mean with the Gulf War and stuff like that, I think the mediation went on for two years, they absolutely exhausted it. They did everything they could bar roll over and play dead. They did everything avoid a conflict, but in the end these great brains said We’ll have to kill people to solve this problem. I’m not saying its right, but I’m saying that’s how it is. People think too much about what is right and wrong. Its not about right and wrong. We know violence is wrong, but its about working in an environment and working within the rules of that environment, but at the same time trying to change the rules so that we can grow in consciousness so that violence isn’t a part of us. When you’ve got a choice between the mud and the stars, most people will choose the stars. But most people at the moment, for some reason, are choosing the mud because they are using violence. Violence is very lower ego stuff its very lower echelon stuff.