Against Pacifism

I’ve grown sick and tired of the pacifists, those who would turn a blind eye to atrocity, violence, despotism and slavery, than to face it with a modicum of force. They’re too busy enjoying their freedoms to want to defend them. They’re too busy enjoying their rights and security to stand up for the rights and security of others. They’re too busy instilling honor in cowardice to see the honor in fighting back, in standing up for others, in fighting evil.

I think pacifism is generally ruinous to freedom on Earth. As de Tocqueville wrote of America, “It is clear that if each citizen, as he becomes individually weaker and consequently more incapable in isolation of preserving his freedom, does not learn the art of uniting with those like him to defend it, tyranny will necessarily grow with equality.” In the same vein, those who tolerate wickedness and slavery for the sake of maintaining their pacifism, tacitly support that same tyranny. Despots can withstand moral posturing; they cannot withstand physical force.

Besides, imagine if the British heeded Gandhi’s pacifism in WWII. He advised the Brits to “lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity”. And if the Nazis weren’t immediately compelled by this display of capitulation, Gandhi said. “you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered”.

Gandhi also preferred his pacifism to the lives of Jews.

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.”

Surely the outcome of the war would have been much different had any of them adhered to Gandhi’s woo. Britain would have been conquered, the German jews would have been complicit in Hitler’s final solution, their own demise, and the Nazis would have advanced on the world unabated until someone intervened. Luckily for the world, only the patently wrong heeded his puerile message, and good men fought back against evil.

No matter how good Gandhi may have felt about his pacifist piety, and the veneer of high-mindedness he justified it with, his advice would have resulted in mass slaughter, suicide, and genocide, which he tacitly advocated.

Orwell wrote in a time of war that, “since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy then for it.” This is because “those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” Orwell dripped a little more scorn on the British pacifists of his day, reminding them that, “the idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security”.

It goes without saying we should avoid war and violence at all costs for the obvious reasons. But not every war is a useless one. In matters of defending ourselves, the innocent, and freedom itself against those who would rob it, martial combat is not only the practical choice but also the moral one. Evil runs rampant, but only if everyone lets it.

LesMis

I respect the rights of others. Even yours. I am not a pacifist, I consider all sides of the situation before passing judgement whether it is the right or wrong action. I will take necessary and proper action if I feel the cause is justified. But these days I see way too many chaotic people jumping at causes without evaluating the situation well enough. All that is happening is they are creating civil unrest and inciting chaos. That is not cool, that is just disruptive.

I see way too much irrational behavior in the young these days, the protests of the sixties were much more civil than what is going on today, I lived through those, I knew some people who were involved. Maybe we need to have these new age protesters get stoned more often. Stoned groups back then had mellow and peaceful protests most times. Times have changed, nobody hugs a tree anymore.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I respect the rights of others. Even yours. I am not a pacifist, I consider all sides of the situation before passing judgement whether it is the right or wrong action. I will take necessary and proper action if I feel the cause is justified. But these days I see way too many chaotic people jumping at causes without evaluating the situation well enough. All that is happening is they are creating civil unrest and inciting chaos. That is not cool, that is just disruptive.

I see way too much irrational behavior in the young these days, the protests of the sixties were much more civil than what is going on today, I lived through those, I knew some people who were involved. Maybe we need to have these new age protesters get stoned more often. Stoned groups back then had mellow and peaceful protests most times. Times have changed, nobody hugs a tree anymore.

But will you defend with force the rights and freedoms against tyranny?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pacifism has it's place but in the face of atrocity enforcing justice is NOT vengeance, pacifism in the face of atrocity simply allows more people to suffer and the pacifists whom do nothing then become the good men whom did nothing.

In the word's of Edmond Burke.

"All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for Good men to do nothing".

I am not a conservative but the quote is very accurate and absolutely correct.

The only time a good man should do nothing is when doing something is the greater or equal evil.

That is were blanket pacifism fail's.

Had ENOUGH good men stood up then Hitler would never have risen to power.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: rickymouse
I respect the rights of others. Even yours. I am not a pacifist, I consider all sides of the situation before passing judgement whether it is the right or wrong action. I will take necessary and proper action if I feel the cause is justified. But these days I see way too many chaotic people jumping at causes without evaluating the situation well enough. All that is happening is they are creating civil unrest and inciting chaos. That is not cool, that is just disruptive.

I see way too much irrational behavior in the young these days, the protests of the sixties were much more civil than what is going on today, I lived through those, I knew some people who were involved. Maybe we need to have these new age protesters get stoned more often. Stoned groups back then had mellow and peaceful protests most times. Times have changed, nobody hugs a tree anymore.

But will you defend with force the rights and freedoms against tyranny?

I have seen more tyranny in the sixties than I do now. I have seen the lies spread by big business in the past, I have seen people abusing the system more back years ago than now.

You do not need to use force in this country to fight tyranny, but I see way too many people making a mountain out of a mole hill these days, twisting things to make things look different than they really are. These people twisting the facts to grow their numbers are actually exhibiting tyranny, because they are spurning misinterpretations of events and lies. I do not approve of that and never will. People inciting chaos are not doing our society any good, good peaceful protest on important subjects are good, but recently most of the protests seem irrational. I do not know what is happening to our society these days, slow steady change is necessary in society to evolve, chaos destroys society and shifts things the opposite way making life hell for many people.

Abusing our system will only cause a collapse of our rights, when the majority of the people get upset they will vote to take away our right, which gives control to a group that is probably not whom we want in charge.

I am not interested in being the "world police", but I am fine with fighting these things in my country. War should be a last resort and only be waged in self-defense. I hold the same policy for my personal code of conduct. I would not take another life except in self-defense or the defense of another.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am not interested in being the "world police", but I am fine with fighting these things in my country. War should be a last resort and only be waged in self-defense. I hold the same policy for my personal code of conduct. I would not take another life except in self-defense or the defense of another.

That's what I'm worried about. If the "world police" don't combat tyranny and defend liberty and justice throughout the world, then tyranny prevails.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pacifism has it's place but in the face of atrocity enforcing justice is NOT vengeance, pacifism in the face of atrocity simply allows more people to suffer and the pacifists whom do nothing then become the good men whom did nothing.

In the word's of Edmond Burke.

"All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for Good men to do nothing".

I am not a conservative but the quite is very accurate and absolutely correct.

The only time a good man should do nothing is when doing something is the greater or equal evil.

That is were blanket pacifism fail's.

Had ENOUGH good men stood up then Hitler would never have risen to power.

Well said.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: rickymouse
I respect the rights of others. Even yours. I am not a pacifist, I consider all sides of the situation before passing judgement whether it is the right or wrong action. I will take necessary and proper action if I feel the cause is justified. But these days I see way too many chaotic people jumping at causes without evaluating the situation well enough. All that is happening is they are creating civil unrest and inciting chaos. That is not cool, that is just disruptive.

I see way too much irrational behavior in the young these days, the protests of the sixties were much more civil than what is going on today, I lived through those, I knew some people who were involved. Maybe we need to have these new age protesters get stoned more often. Stoned groups back then had mellow and peaceful protests most times. Times have changed, nobody hugs a tree anymore.

But will you defend with force the rights and freedoms against tyranny?

I have seen more tyranny in the sixties than I do now. I have seen the lies spread by big business in the past, I have seen people abusing the system more back years ago than now.

You do not need to use force in this country to fight tyranny, but I see way too many people making a mountain out of a mole hill these days, twisting things to make things look different than they really are. These people twisting the facts to grow their numbers are actually exhibiting tyranny, because they are spurning misinterpretations of events and lies. I do not approve of that and never will. People inciting chaos are not doing our society any good, good peaceful protest on important subjects are good, but recently most of the protests seem irrational. I do not know what is happening to our society these days, slow steady change is necessary in society to evolve, chaos destroys society and shifts things the opposite way making life hell for many people.

Abusing our system will only cause a collapse of our rights, when the majority of the people get upset they will vote to take away our right, which gives control to a group that is probably not whom we want in charge.

Well said.

I think Lewis' arguments are strong on this matter.

I was a pacifist until I had children.
Suddenly things worth protecting made my own life of actual value.
I now extend that same feeling towards my country and Constitution.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

By pacifists I'm assuming that you're talking about the UNHRC? and their inability and general apathy in intervening and eliminating clearly despotic situations.

The reason I make that assumption is because I personally don't see the apathy you're talking about. From the general public what I see is cynicism and confusion.

The cynicism & confusion is born entirely from the 3 decades or more of the US bringing freedom and democracy to the world that has seen hundreds and hundreds of thousands killed directly from freedom letting or indirectly through the slow torture of sanctions that bring nothing but malnutrition & disease to the general populace. It's not too difficult to be cynical about that relentless BS.

And it is confusing. It is confusing for the average punter to reconcile why on one hand a dictator like Gadaffi, for example, should be slaughtered and an entire nation left in desolation, when on the very same continent organised terrorism reigns supreme and largely unchallenged.

I think pacifism is generally ruinous to freedom on Earth.

Personally I think the USs policy of freedom & democracy for all is far more "generally ruinous" than any pacifism that I can see.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am not interested in being the "world police", but I am fine with fighting these things in my country. War should be a last resort and only be waged in self-defense. I hold the same policy for my personal code of conduct. I would not take another life except in self-defense or the defense of another.

That's what I'm worried about. If the "world police" don't combat tyranny and defend liberty and justice throughout the world, then tyranny prevails.

I think we need to get our own house in order before we continue that.

Thats one huge gripe with other countries about the US, is that we exert our virtues with military force all over the world, all the while our country is literally upside down on what is right and wrong, and on the brink of serious disaster and social meltdown.

a reply to: rickymouse

Are you a sibling of mine that I don't know about?

Could have written those words myself.

a reply to: myselfaswell

In particular I mean those who pretend they are morally superior because they believe war is evil.

You’re right; the US foreign policy has seemed to lead to ruin, but then again, we are unable to determine what might have happened had they done nothing at all. Perhaps things might have turned out better, and perhaps worse.

As a Christian and pacifist (sadly that can change) we are taught to love and forgive others.
It is what our God desires from us, Christians. A Christian is not promised an easy life, money or a good job, we are promised a relationship with God at a future time. This life is semi irrelevant, it's just not that important

Ever see Hacksaw Ridge, care to comment
Though I maybe against killing I am not against supporting, even at the cost of my own life, an action that I think justified

Killing others, just not my thing, not my faith
I guess it comes down to what pacifism

Nobody would say war is not evil, it's necessary at times that's obvious
Jesus blessed and helped Roman soldiers, called a knife wielding zealot into His crew, will return one day and bring about justice with a brutal judgement

But Jesus told His followers not to kill others
There are other ways a pacifist can serve, is that not good enough


Imagine if Ghandi told Hitler Stalin and Mao to be pacifists and they listened
Imagine imagine
Hypotheticals are great fun arnt they, a little trite but fun

Cause harm to me or mine and I will stomp your dick in the dirt.
Being a pussy is not an option.
I got my face bloodied by a bully when I was a young kid.
My father told me that if I didn't go kick his ass, he was going to kick mine.
Long story short, that guy never bullied me again.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In particular I mean those who pretend they are morally superior because they believe war is evil.

In that sense I kind of agree, however I do see things a little different.

On one hand I consider pacifism, in the absence of facing a direct and immediate threat, to be extraordinarily naive. To claim moral superiority over something you've never been tested against is, as I have noted, extraordinarily naive.

On the other hand, pacifism claimed while facing a direct and immediate threat, is a lie. It is a lie born of cowardice that has been seeded by abject fear. The lie is to claim moral superiority. That moral superiority is itself just a mantra to be repeated long and often enough to be believed.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again you're being selective with facts. By world police I gather you mean the USA. Yesterdays allies like Qaddafi and Hussein were toppled.

Tell me how peace has prevailed in Iraq after local elections?

Tell me how a wall in Israel stopped tyranny and ensued justice for the Palestinians.

Where to now?

worldview.stratfor.com...

'Coalition of the Willing' Continues To Undermine United Nations

Lets get a few mates together make some snip up about Roger having WMDS - but in reality we want to enter Rogers house to rape Roger's wife.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

but then again, we are unable to determine what might have happened had they done nothing at all. Perhaps things might have turned out better, and perhaps worse.

So you ignore history for "what ifs"

Its not like we haven't had the knowledge of Irans repressive regime under Shah Reza Pahlavi and its cozy relationship with
USA & UK

en.wikipedia.org...
Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah amongst certain groups within Iran, the most significant of which were US and UK support for his regime, clashes with Islamists and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 17 January, forced him to leave Iran.

Unable to determine? You think these things happen in a vacuum.

What no reports and scenarios coming out of think tanks prior to military action?

But being men of reason we can see that Saddam & others wanted to replace the petrodollar with a gold backed dinar.

But you know this and thats why you leave your arguments vague.