The Problem with Pacifism
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other" John Stuart Mill
Pacifist groups are making a come back. They are dusting off their badges and taking to the streets and to cyber space with their views, determined to spread the message that violence and war are intrinsically immoral. They have been amongst the key shock troops in the so-called "Anti-War" movement that has mushroomed in size and marched in every major city on planet earth. These pacifists are undoubtedly very principled, sincere people-unfortunately being sincere doesn't make you right. After all, it is possible to be sincerely wrong. And make no mistake, the pacifists are indeed sincerely wrong.
Human Nature
If theres one thing most left wingers can't grasp, its human nature. According to Marx and other authors of his ideological stripe, humans are perfect creatures, who have simply been polluted by the society in which they were born. Once these societal pollutants (poverty, inequality, discrimination etc) have been removed then there will be nothing left to stain our nature. Humans will then be made perfect, and we can then skip into the rainbow as we commence the first day of our eternal "classless utopia". Sounds great; except its wrong.
Leftists explain most phenomena in terms of society polluting an individual in question. Every time there is an execution in America, the anti-death penalty leftists argue that "poverty" or "abuse" in the killers childhood were to blame for their crimes, and that therefore this person should not be held to account for their crimes. Instead, they argue the authorities should socially re-programme their societies in such way as to remove the societal pollutants of "poverty" and "abuse" or whatever else they blame it on to prevent further crimes. Their geopolitical explanations are based on a similar theory. They argue that because of international competition for resources and the ability of national governments to decide whether or not to fight, wars begin. Therefore, if resources are shared, and the right of a government to decide to go to war is a decision they hand over to the UN, then no more wars.
However, we rightists are under no such illusion. Crimes do not occur because of societal pollutants. They occur for something a little more basic than the theories of abstract post-modern sociology. At an international level, wars dont only begin because of greed or a desire to control resources, sometimes the pure desire to inflict tyranny on others is enough. Something else is to blame. That something is called human nature. Hard wired into our psyche is the potential for violence. The potential for cruelty. The potential for selfishness. Its all there in our DNA, like it or not. And the evidence is irrefutable.
In Seville, UNESCO announced that violence and killing are not natural. They are wrong. Extensive evidence from the earliest days of human pre-history show evidence of organised violence and warfare. Stone age human skeleltons have been un earthed which show clear signs of having being murdered. Throughout human history there has been rape and cruelty, as shown by the existence of laws against it in the earliest human societies. Thats just the way we are. Brain washing and re-education can only do so much to change human nature. Over 70 years of state communism attempted to do this using the full machinery of a total state and failed to change human nature in any way, shape or form. Human nature cannot be changed, and any attempt to change it is on a highway to nothing.
Preying on the weak
Now let me propose something to you; lets suppose I place a sign on my front door saying "No matter what, I will never use force to defend myself, no matter what you try to do to me or my family and no matter what you try to take from me". This might make sense; after all, the overwhelming majority of people I know and who I spend my time with are decent, law abiding people who would never dream of doing me harm. Therefore, I'll never need to defend myself. Sounds like a great idea, its just that its not from people like this who you need to be prepared to defend yourself.
Criminals and tyrants will see any sign of unilateral pacifism as what it is; a sign of supreme weakness and naïvety, which the wicked will be only too happy to take advantage of. History is sadly full of examples of how peaceful individuals, and peaceful societies made unilateral statements of non-aggression and were swept away by the pitiless tyrants who neighboured them. Take the people of Tibet; the Tibetans were a peaceful and noble people who had no history of violence against anyone. Their peaceful religion of Buddhism has/had a very strong prohibition on violence under any circumstances, and for all its ethical appeal, this was to prove their downfall.
The Communist Chinese had no such shyness about shedding blood. In the early 1950's, they began making threats against their neighbours. Despite the peaceful protests and attempts at peaceful diplomacy from the Tibetan authorities, the Chinese communists snorted at them, and launched an invasion of Tibet. Atrocities were widespread; reports of rapes, tortures and massacres began to come out of Tibet. Ancient Buddhist monasteries were dynamited or converted to secular purposes. Holy Buddhist scriptures were burned. The Tibetan language and other aspects of unique Tibetan cultural identity were suppressed, and anything upto 1 million Tibetan people were forced to flee, including the leader of their spiritual community the Dalai Lama. Today, there is almost no trace of Tibetan indigenous culture, a sad testament to the cost of pacifism. Whilst it is an ethically admirable and appealing stance, it does not impress those from whom we have most to fear.
During the Cold War, leftist groups like CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) marched through the streets of the West's major cities, urging us to destroy our nuclear weapons irrespective of what the USSR did with its. This was at a time when the Soviets had over 1 million men poised to invade Western Europe lined up along the East-West German border, backed by hundreds of super sonic jets, hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces and of course, thousands of nuclear weapons. Documents de-classified by the Kremlin have shown that the reason the USSR never rolled into Western Europe with its tanks was the fact it knew the Wests leaders would use nuclear weapons to defend themselves against the USSR's very large troops formations and even against its cities. Makes you think what would have happened if we'd done what CND asked....
Are you Tibetan or a Spartan?
Compare the sad fate of the pacifist Tibetans to a culture that believes in self defense. The Greek people have spent millenia being attacked by their neighbours, but time and time again, resisted the tyrants who would smother their freedom and suppress their identity. At the battle of Salamis, the Greeks fought a heroic battle against the Persians who threatened to invade their nation and smother the fledgling Greek culture in its infancy. Had the Greeks not resisted there would have been no classical Greek culture, and therefore no democracy, and no Greco-Roman culture, without which the Western World would be unrecognisable.
Later in their history, the Greeks were overwhelmed by the Ottoman Turks, who began attempting to ruthlessly destroy Greek culture. However, the Greeks refused to give in, strongly resisting any attempt to erase them as a people, until in the early 1800's, they rose up against their oppressors and over threw them. Even to this day, the Greek people remain amongst the most culturally, linguistically and religiously unique. Had their ancestors been pacifist, this would not be the case, and the Greeks would be a sad, small footnote in a history book. One of my favourite stories is about an ancient visitor to the Greek city of Sparta. He asked one of his Spartan friends why there were no city walls around Sparta. His companion smiled, pointed to the young men of Sparta and said "We don't need walls. These men are our walls". The Spartans were no pacifists; hence the unwillingness of their enemies to attack them, and hence why there is still a Greek culture today.
Conclusion
Pacifism is nice on paper, and how nice it would be if human nature was such that there was no more war. However, human nature is bad. And whats more, it will never change, no matter how much money and aid we spend alleviating poverty. No matter how much we educate the people. It will never change. We need to get that into our heads. No amount of "social justice" or "economic justice" will change our DNA code. As long as there are evil men (and we've already established that there always will be) there will be a need for men who fight them. Without good men who fight, yes, fight evil, then evil will triumph. Its all well and good having good, principled people, but they will all lay dead at the hands of the evil if there are not good men prepared to fight to protect them.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the men of Sparta protecting me than the men of the anti-war movement.....
Pacifist groups are making a come back. They are dusting off their badges and taking to the streets and to cyber space with their views, determined to spread the message that violence and war are intrinsically immoral. They have been amongst the key shock troops in the so-called "Anti-War" movement that has mushroomed in size and marched in every major city on planet earth. These pacifists are undoubtedly very principled, sincere people-unfortunately being sincere doesn't make you right. After all, it is possible to be sincerely wrong. And make no mistake, the pacifists are indeed sincerely wrong.
Human Nature
If theres one thing most left wingers can't grasp, its human nature. According to Marx and other authors of his ideological stripe, humans are perfect creatures, who have simply been polluted by the society in which they were born. Once these societal pollutants (poverty, inequality, discrimination etc) have been removed then there will be nothing left to stain our nature. Humans will then be made perfect, and we can then skip into the rainbow as we commence the first day of our eternal "classless utopia". Sounds great; except its wrong.
Leftists explain most phenomena in terms of society polluting an individual in question. Every time there is an execution in America, the anti-death penalty leftists argue that "poverty" or "abuse" in the killers childhood were to blame for their crimes, and that therefore this person should not be held to account for their crimes. Instead, they argue the authorities should socially re-programme their societies in such way as to remove the societal pollutants of "poverty" and "abuse" or whatever else they blame it on to prevent further crimes. Their geopolitical explanations are based on a similar theory. They argue that because of international competition for resources and the ability of national governments to decide whether or not to fight, wars begin. Therefore, if resources are shared, and the right of a government to decide to go to war is a decision they hand over to the UN, then no more wars.
However, we rightists are under no such illusion. Crimes do not occur because of societal pollutants. They occur for something a little more basic than the theories of abstract post-modern sociology. At an international level, wars dont only begin because of greed or a desire to control resources, sometimes the pure desire to inflict tyranny on others is enough. Something else is to blame. That something is called human nature. Hard wired into our psyche is the potential for violence. The potential for cruelty. The potential for selfishness. Its all there in our DNA, like it or not. And the evidence is irrefutable.
In Seville, UNESCO announced that violence and killing are not natural. They are wrong. Extensive evidence from the earliest days of human pre-history show evidence of organised violence and warfare. Stone age human skeleltons have been un earthed which show clear signs of having being murdered. Throughout human history there has been rape and cruelty, as shown by the existence of laws against it in the earliest human societies. Thats just the way we are. Brain washing and re-education can only do so much to change human nature. Over 70 years of state communism attempted to do this using the full machinery of a total state and failed to change human nature in any way, shape or form. Human nature cannot be changed, and any attempt to change it is on a highway to nothing.
Preying on the weak
Now let me propose something to you; lets suppose I place a sign on my front door saying "No matter what, I will never use force to defend myself, no matter what you try to do to me or my family and no matter what you try to take from me". This might make sense; after all, the overwhelming majority of people I know and who I spend my time with are decent, law abiding people who would never dream of doing me harm. Therefore, I'll never need to defend myself. Sounds like a great idea, its just that its not from people like this who you need to be prepared to defend yourself.
Criminals and tyrants will see any sign of unilateral pacifism as what it is; a sign of supreme weakness and naïvety, which the wicked will be only too happy to take advantage of. History is sadly full of examples of how peaceful individuals, and peaceful societies made unilateral statements of non-aggression and were swept away by the pitiless tyrants who neighboured them. Take the people of Tibet; the Tibetans were a peaceful and noble people who had no history of violence against anyone. Their peaceful religion of Buddhism has/had a very strong prohibition on violence under any circumstances, and for all its ethical appeal, this was to prove their downfall.
The Communist Chinese had no such shyness about shedding blood. In the early 1950's, they began making threats against their neighbours. Despite the peaceful protests and attempts at peaceful diplomacy from the Tibetan authorities, the Chinese communists snorted at them, and launched an invasion of Tibet. Atrocities were widespread; reports of rapes, tortures and massacres began to come out of Tibet. Ancient Buddhist monasteries were dynamited or converted to secular purposes. Holy Buddhist scriptures were burned. The Tibetan language and other aspects of unique Tibetan cultural identity were suppressed, and anything upto 1 million Tibetan people were forced to flee, including the leader of their spiritual community the Dalai Lama. Today, there is almost no trace of Tibetan indigenous culture, a sad testament to the cost of pacifism. Whilst it is an ethically admirable and appealing stance, it does not impress those from whom we have most to fear.
During the Cold War, leftist groups like CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) marched through the streets of the West's major cities, urging us to destroy our nuclear weapons irrespective of what the USSR did with its. This was at a time when the Soviets had over 1 million men poised to invade Western Europe lined up along the East-West German border, backed by hundreds of super sonic jets, hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces and of course, thousands of nuclear weapons. Documents de-classified by the Kremlin have shown that the reason the USSR never rolled into Western Europe with its tanks was the fact it knew the Wests leaders would use nuclear weapons to defend themselves against the USSR's very large troops formations and even against its cities. Makes you think what would have happened if we'd done what CND asked....
Are you Tibetan or a Spartan?
Compare the sad fate of the pacifist Tibetans to a culture that believes in self defense. The Greek people have spent millenia being attacked by their neighbours, but time and time again, resisted the tyrants who would smother their freedom and suppress their identity. At the battle of Salamis, the Greeks fought a heroic battle against the Persians who threatened to invade their nation and smother the fledgling Greek culture in its infancy. Had the Greeks not resisted there would have been no classical Greek culture, and therefore no democracy, and no Greco-Roman culture, without which the Western World would be unrecognisable.
Later in their history, the Greeks were overwhelmed by the Ottoman Turks, who began attempting to ruthlessly destroy Greek culture. However, the Greeks refused to give in, strongly resisting any attempt to erase them as a people, until in the early 1800's, they rose up against their oppressors and over threw them. Even to this day, the Greek people remain amongst the most culturally, linguistically and religiously unique. Had their ancestors been pacifist, this would not be the case, and the Greeks would be a sad, small footnote in a history book. One of my favourite stories is about an ancient visitor to the Greek city of Sparta. He asked one of his Spartan friends why there were no city walls around Sparta. His companion smiled, pointed to the young men of Sparta and said "We don't need walls. These men are our walls". The Spartans were no pacifists; hence the unwillingness of their enemies to attack them, and hence why there is still a Greek culture today.
Conclusion
Pacifism is nice on paper, and how nice it would be if human nature was such that there was no more war. However, human nature is bad. And whats more, it will never change, no matter how much money and aid we spend alleviating poverty. No matter how much we educate the people. It will never change. We need to get that into our heads. No amount of "social justice" or "economic justice" will change our DNA code. As long as there are evil men (and we've already established that there always will be) there will be a need for men who fight them. Without good men who fight, yes, fight evil, then evil will triumph. Its all well and good having good, principled people, but they will all lay dead at the hands of the evil if there are not good men prepared to fight to protect them.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the men of Sparta protecting me than the men of the anti-war movement.....
posted by Michael | 7:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home