The Malignity of "Nonviolence"
The esteemed Victor Davis Hanson whom everyone should really Favorite Place or Link to at
http://www.victorhanson.com/
describes, in "Nonviolence Nonsense"
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011608.html
how Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mohadas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi, claims that the large part of the world's violence is the fault of the Jews.
This, and Hanson's analysis of Arun Gandhi's reasoning (or lack thereof) nicely demonstrates how "pacifism" -- the doctrine of never responding to violence with violence (*), leads inexorably to Blaming The Victim (**) of aggressive violence. Did Hitler kill the Jews? It must have been the fault of the Jews, for resisting him. Do Muslims kill each other, or Westerners? It must be the fault of the Israelis, for resisting them.
The reason why this naturally follows is that general pacifism is irrational. It only works as a tactic of moral demonstration against those who are already at least partially convinced of the immorality of their own cause: against violent fanatics (such as the Nazis, Communists, or Islamists) all it does is make one easier prey.
But the people who believe in pacifism of course are deeply, emotionally wedded to their belief. They must see nonviolence as an effacious tactic in all cases: to do otherwise would be to admit that they owe their own safety to the non-pacifists of the world, the "Tommies" who "guard them while they sleep," who the pacifists want to feel superior to as savage and unreasoning violent beasts.
So, when someone is victimized by the aggressively violent, and responds by fighting back the pacifist must blame the victim, because to do otherwise would be to blame THEMSELVES (for failing to forcibly support the victim's cause). Obviously, the victims failed to practice nonviolence: if they had done so properly, they would have exerted the mysterious moral power of pacifism and won them over, even by their own martyrdom. Clearly, they cannot sympathize with the victim, because by fighting back he is failing to be a "proper" victim and hence potential martyr.
And, of course, any real victim, on the scale of a whole people, will fight back. Some people in the targeted group may practice pacifism in the face of aggressive violence, but some will not. And when some do not, the pacifists then claim that the cause of the victims is thereby tainted, and they now deserve no sympathy.
It's a good racket. The pacifists never have to worry about their inaction dooming the worthy to death, because no one ever is "worthy", when actually attacked.
Of course, it depends on mocking the uniforms that protect the pacifists while they sleep.
Which is contemptible.
And worse, it morally hamstrings those who want to mount an effective defense against evil. Far too many people buy the pacifist argument, or if they disagree at least see it as morally refined rather than depraved. So the defenders of Civilization have a nagging suspicion now that they are doing something wrong, that if they were better people they would practice nonviolence.
I say to all of you: Don't buy it. You are fighting for what you believe in, stopping Evil in its tracks. The pacifists are simply whining on the sidelines, while enjoying the benefits of the peace you purchase them with your blood.
If anything, they are morally inferior to you.
(*) As opposed to "peacefulness," which is never initiating the use of force save in self-defense or the defense of one's allies.
(**) For real, not in the whiny Leftist form where one claims that someone who has been hurt can never be criticized.
http://www.victorhanson.com/
describes, in "Nonviolence Nonsense"
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011608.html
how Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mohadas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi, claims that the large part of the world's violence is the fault of the Jews.
This, and Hanson's analysis of Arun Gandhi's reasoning (or lack thereof) nicely demonstrates how "pacifism" -- the doctrine of never responding to violence with violence (*), leads inexorably to Blaming The Victim (**) of aggressive violence. Did Hitler kill the Jews? It must have been the fault of the Jews, for resisting him. Do Muslims kill each other, or Westerners? It must be the fault of the Israelis, for resisting them.
The reason why this naturally follows is that general pacifism is irrational. It only works as a tactic of moral demonstration against those who are already at least partially convinced of the immorality of their own cause: against violent fanatics (such as the Nazis, Communists, or Islamists) all it does is make one easier prey.
But the people who believe in pacifism of course are deeply, emotionally wedded to their belief. They must see nonviolence as an effacious tactic in all cases: to do otherwise would be to admit that they owe their own safety to the non-pacifists of the world, the "Tommies" who "guard them while they sleep," who the pacifists want to feel superior to as savage and unreasoning violent beasts.
So, when someone is victimized by the aggressively violent, and responds by fighting back the pacifist must blame the victim, because to do otherwise would be to blame THEMSELVES (for failing to forcibly support the victim's cause). Obviously, the victims failed to practice nonviolence: if they had done so properly, they would have exerted the mysterious moral power of pacifism and won them over, even by their own martyrdom. Clearly, they cannot sympathize with the victim, because by fighting back he is failing to be a "proper" victim and hence potential martyr.
And, of course, any real victim, on the scale of a whole people, will fight back. Some people in the targeted group may practice pacifism in the face of aggressive violence, but some will not. And when some do not, the pacifists then claim that the cause of the victims is thereby tainted, and they now deserve no sympathy.
It's a good racket. The pacifists never have to worry about their inaction dooming the worthy to death, because no one ever is "worthy", when actually attacked.
Of course, it depends on mocking the uniforms that protect the pacifists while they sleep.
Which is contemptible.
And worse, it morally hamstrings those who want to mount an effective defense against evil. Far too many people buy the pacifist argument, or if they disagree at least see it as morally refined rather than depraved. So the defenders of Civilization have a nagging suspicion now that they are doing something wrong, that if they were better people they would practice nonviolence.
I say to all of you: Don't buy it. You are fighting for what you believe in, stopping Evil in its tracks. The pacifists are simply whining on the sidelines, while enjoying the benefits of the peace you purchase them with your blood.
If anything, they are morally inferior to you.
(*) As opposed to "peacefulness," which is never initiating the use of force save in self-defense or the defense of one's allies.
(**) For real, not in the whiny Leftist form where one claims that someone who has been hurt can never be criticized.