When pacifists hold-up their "Global peace and unity" signs, remember that their version of "peace" means standing in a circle singing "kum ba yah" while terrorists murder your loved ones.

Pacifism Empowers Terrorism

By Carter Laren (October 3, 2001)

[CAPITALISMMAGAZINE.COM] In the weeks following the 11 September attack, organizations across the nation-- especially on college campuses--have gathered to rally in support of Adolf Hitler. They've posted signs, handed-out leaflets, and written editorials proclaiming their steadfast support. Of course they're not praising Hitler specifically; that would be narrow-minded. Besides, he's dead. Instead, they're pledging allegiance to his 21st century counterparts everywhere. They argue that the best world--their most blissful ideal--would be a world ruled by the most hideous, murderous, monstrously evil man imaginable.

Who are these frightful people?

Pacifists.

The essential idea of pacifism is the total and complete abstinence from violence, and two corollary rules of action arise from this: 1) Abstain from the initiation (unprovoked use) of force against another individual, and 2) Abstain from the use of force in self-defense (provoked use).

The first corollary is healthy and easy to accept, but to accept the second corollary takes an acute case of self-loathing. In fact, pacifism is an inherently self-destructive concept.

Imagine, for a moment, that being a pacifist is the ideal. Now imagine someone attacking a pacifist with the intent to rape and kill her. At this point, the pacifist must make a choice: should she defend herself from the attacker, or should she lie back passively in an attempt to set a good example? If she defends herself, she has denied pacifism by violating the second corollary. If she does nothing to defend herself, she promotes the destruction of pacifism by *willfully* allowing her attacker (obviously a non-pacifist) to annihilate the ideal (a pacifist). Pacifism, by definition, promotes the destruction of pacifists.

Pacifists would argue that they are idealists, as if being an idealist meant being excused from having to defend those ideals. Consider an individual engaged in the following line of reasoning: "It would be ideal if all people knew how to perform open- heart surgery, so I am going to behave as if everyone is a heart surgeon. I am an idealist." Although this may be idealism, it is also idiocy (and self-destructive).

Pacifists think that by pretending that violence doesn't exist, eventually it won't. This is not just silly; it is a vicious, deadly lie. Aggression cannot be defeated by rewarding it. Organizers of "Don't turn tradgedy [sic] into a war" rallies across the country would have Americans believe that the proper response to the murder of thousands of innocent lives is a candlelight vigil and impromptu poetry readings. This is mass suicide. It is an invitation to the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Attilas, and the Bin Ladens of the world to slaughter the American people and to gut their corpses.

Implicit in the pacifist's drivel is the implication: "may the worst man win." Only two types of people can accept a philosophy like this: a fiend or a fool. A fiend hates everyone, including himself, and so doesn't care if the "worst man" wins. A fool believes that if he smiles sheepishly at Adolf Hitler, Hitler will suddenly change his mind and decide to take-up knitting. They are both wrong, and they are both evil, [because in both cases such a policy can only lead to the destruction of the good.]

To promote this evil in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks, pacifists have added a few extra deceptions to their arsenal. One of these is the equation of war and racism. "War and Racism are Not the Answer," reads an anti-war poster at a San Francisco university. This statement blatantly implies that those who support war against terrorist-harboring nations are racist. It relies on the insecurity of the reader by convincing him to oppose war for fear of being (unjustly) labeled "racist." A war against the Afghan, Iranian, and other terrorist-supporting governments does not constitute racism. It constitutes self-defense. Racism is clearly wrong, but pacifism doesn't hold a monopoly on that idea.

Another pacifist deception is the love-hate alternative. Pacifists often assume that a person must either "love" everyone or "hate" everyone. In a fit of confused self- righteousness, they then proceed to denounce "hate" and appoint themselves as champions of "love." "Love is stronger than hate," reads a university-sponsored banner condemning US retaliation. What pacifists do not chose to (or cannot) understand is that one cannot truly love everything and everyone.

Love is based on a value-structure: one loves someone in relation to how one's own values are reflected in that person. A man who tried to love everyone indiscriminately would place himself in the following predicament: he must feel emotions towards Joseph Stalin that are similar to the emotions he feels for his spouse. If he ever reaches such a deranged state, it is certain that whatever emotion he is feeling, it is most definitely not love. It is acceptable and proper to hate Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and the terrorists who leveled the World Trade Center; those people were evil. They do not deserve the same emotion due a spouse or a friend. Stay away from a person that claims to "love" everyone; they necessarily stand for nothing and value nothing. Such people are incapable of loving anyone at all.

In light of current events, one of the most loathsome deceptions that the pacifists have adopted is the labeling of the World Trade Center attacks as a "tragedy." Choosing to describe the events of 11 September as a "tragedy" instead of an "act of war" or an "attack" puts them on the same level as a freak earthquake or sudden hurricane. This is shameful. The destruction of the World Trade Center was not some haphazard, uncontrollable act of nature; it was a deliberate massacre orchestrated and carried-out by evil men with evil intentions. Referring to it as a "tragedy" is not simply sloppy word choice; it is despicable.

On the day that the United States drops the first bomb in retaliation for the World Trade Center attacks, pacifists are planning to meet at locations in several cities around the country at 5:00 p.m. When they hold-up their "Global peace and unity" signs, remember that their version of "peace" means standing in a circle singing "kum ba yah" while terrorists murder your loved ones. When they shout, "War and racism are not the answer," remember that they are willing to label you "racist" just to promote their demented agenda. When you see a banner proclaiming, "Love is stronger than hate," remember that they are asking you to love a murderer. And when they warn, in their condescending sneers, "Don't turn tragedy into a war," imagine that it is 1939 and you are a Jew in Poland.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 05, 2001

Answers

Make mental preparations to deal with a large loss of human life near you. I don't know how, does anyone?

Make physical preparations to support as many refugees as possible and expect to receive more than you prepared for.

Find a way to support your extended community in case of attacks nearby. That means getting in touch with your local emergency management team. Find out what skills are useful in emergencies and make an effort to obtain them.

Try to get "right with God", whatever that means to you. Just in case you find yourself there without prior warning.

Be willing to triage whole areas of the country. The world.

If you're doing all these things, then presumably you aren't on the front lines of the war. Make a personal effort to be a strong local line of defense.

Then, I suppose we might as well let 'er rip. Hope we don't destroy the planet.

-- camp helen, relief efforts begin at home (we@leave.the.lantern.lit.for.you), October 05, 2001.

Thanks, helen -- actually, I agonized about all that stuff from mid- '98 'through Jan. 2000. If ya knowwhutahmean. :)

But, as, I recall, Marc Bolan of T. Rex sang as their 1972(?) song "Get it On, Bang a Gong" faded out,

"Meanwhile, I'm still thinkin'"...

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 05, 2001.

so,say America wins the war on terrorism[doubtful]''can mere mortal's defeat satan?? will we go back too party hardy time???

party.party,party=TIL the next wake up call!!!

when all the world,should be on bended knee's,,guess what? the [talking heads]are telling us how good we are! thank GOD, for the few''that GET IT, [JESUS] said=there will be wars & rumors of wars til=the END comes!! study=prophecy,and beat CNN, to the scoop!!!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 05, 2001.

What is it about Capitalism Magizine? I've only read the few essays published by them that you've posted here, Eve. But it appears to me there's a common thread running through each: work oneself into a tizzy, pump up with adrenaline, spew venom, get published.

The essential idea of pacifism is the total and complete abstinence from violence, and two corollary rules of action arise from this: 1) Abstain from the initiation (unprovoked use) of force against another individual, and 2) Abstain from the use of force in self-defense (provoked use).

The first corollary is healthy and easy to accept, but to accept the second corollary takes an acute case of self-loathing. In fact, pacifism is an inherently self-destructive concept.

The author doesn't have much of a clue about pacifism, IMO, and if he had researched the subject (I.E., a quick read of the Jainist religion) perhaps it would have been more difficult for him to pen this diatribe.

Here's another peach: Implicit in the pacifist's drivel is the implication: "may the worst man win."

Might it occur to the author that there exist definitions for "win" (particularly in this context) beyond his own? No. How silly of me.

Don't mistake my criticism of the author for agreement with the practice of pacifism. It's just that I cringe when reading vicious attacks such as the one above, particularly when they are ripe with ignorance of the subject matter and are bereft of respect for the choices of the individual.

IMO it's good practice to walk through life clutching close the realization that we may not know everything about everything and everyone (not even close), and therefore logic dictates we temper invective with humility. Just one avenue to civility.

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.

One last thing: Thank you, Eve, for posting essays such as this one. The worst of these pieces beats the hell out of the mountains of garbage posts written by our pseudonymous resident pre-teens.

{Not meant as a backhanded compliment, but it sure reads that way, doesn't it?] :)

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.

It's probably a good idea to sleep with at least your underwear on for awhile, too.

Girls should wear white t-shirts. (I like that)

BTW, this article references Stalin. Wasn't he the guy who used to give the "for us or against us" ultimatum just before rounding up dissidents?

And, it could be that the so-called Pacifist aren't buying the complete official story, and who could blame them?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 05, 2001.

Rich -- well, just for now ('cause I've gotta split for awhile soon), I'll just say that you shoulda seen the mischievous grin I had on me when I put this'un up...

And I WILL say that to the extent the guy's facts were straight (say there was a strain of pacifism that fit the facts as he presents them), I really don't see a problem with his essay, except for the kinda "cute" purple-faced, spittle-emitting tone of his and a few "choice" words here and there (he reminded me of a Warner Bros' cartoon character, but I can't remember which one right off). I think, though, that he shouldn't be trying to paint all pacifists with that broad brush of his.

You've gotta admit, though -- this is one royally pissed-off dude -- eh? :)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 05, 2001.