There is honest pacifism - which asserts that war must be avoided on principle at any cost; there is dishonest pacifism - which allows war but only as a 'last resort' (hence de facto never); and there is the mainstream 'pacifism' of careerist and manipulative 'international communism' and PC - which is the doctrine that the West must passively submit to its enemies.
All pacifists are politically correct; although all politically correct are not necessarily pacifist.
(It is their pacifism which marks many libertarians as politically correct.)
Those who believe the opposite of pacifism to be war-mongering are all politically correct.
PC is mostly pacifist at present, in the sense that PC imposes a pacifist agenda on its Western host societies while ignoring or indulging other societies.
However PC is not pacifist with respect to its favoured (client) groups: from them violence is tolerated, and war is reframed as resistance.
Pacifism is a product of defective morality; which denies transcendent goals, denies the primacy of salvation, denies - indeed - that anything is worth dying-for.
Pacifism is therefore materialist, this-worldly, soul-denying: an abstract exaltation and excuse for the primacy of life-preservation, comfort and sensation-seeking.
(Pacifism is also, and very obviously, short-termist and self-destroying; hence pragmatically untenable. However, that is another matter than being considered here.)
Of course, as individuals we are weak, we cling to life, are addicted to comfort, crave the indulgence of sensation - and war is destructive of almost everything that we most value.
We fear war.
Nonetheless, to be a pacifist (that novel doctrine of modernity) entails the extraordinary arrogance of rejecting the wisdom of all our ancestors, including the wisest and holiest.
Pacifism entails that all previous generations until recently were so stupid as uniformly to have misunderstood the massive reality of war and/or so wicked as grossly to have misinterpreted objective morality.
We fear war. But to be moral, we must fear other things even more than we fear war.
Note: There is neither recklessness nor prejudice in labelling so many people to be PC as is implied by the stigma of pacifism: nowadays, in the West, everyone must be assumed politically correct until proven otherwise.
I saw the obituary in today's Times of the chap who invented the Neutron Bomb. It remarked that the success of the public campaign of that wonderful anti-tank weapon was a great triumph for the Soviet Union and its manipulation of Western public opinion. How do you distinguish, within historical episodes, between the influence of PC and the influence of Moscow gold?
Two sides of the same coin - near enough.
I agree completely.
Please provide, if you would not mind, your insights as to why Jesus was not a pacifist. The gutted denominations of Christianity assumes he was, as do the agnostic heirs of Christian civilization.
It is a potential trap for me to provide my (puny) insights: rather look at the most devout Christian societies: the Byzantine Empire is my prime exhibit - ringed for centuries by powerful and hostile ideological enemies, were *they* pacifists?
Of course they weren't, nor were the Holy Fathers.
Christian pacifism was (and is) a product of recent, puny and prideful partial-Christians in a degraded tradition; individuals who themselves lack holiness: why on earth should I take any notice of *their* arguments?
Post a Comment