Great Moments In The History Of Pacifism
Gandhi Is A Sacred Cow -
We Must Butcher Him
In light of the endless handwringing by the Mainstream Media, and Nicholas Berg, over the targeted assassination of the murder Musab al-Zarqawi, I want to repost this old essay from CUANAS.
From CUANAS, circa August 2004:
If Europe would have taken Gandhi’s advice as below, we’d all be speaking German and be part of a perfect Aryan race. There would be no people living with disabilities or birth defects; the Roma (gypsies) would have disappeared into oblivion and there would be no homosexuality allowed. Communism and free speech would be considered crimes and there would have been no freedom of religion.
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...
"If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman and child to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."
"Hitler killed five million [sic] 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."
Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"
Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."
It’s very lucky that Gandhi himself used passive resistance against the civilised British, because if he’d have used the same technique with the Nazis, there would be no people of Indian descent left in this world.
It's time for the world to grow up and realize that Gandhi was not a man of great vision. He was not an incarnation of God.
I would not even call him a man of peace.
The emotional devastation he was willing to lay on his wife gives the lie to his being a good man in private. For a person to deprive the one he supposedly loves of physical intimacy (and the emotional well-being that goes with it) because he believes he has some special relationship with the universe is an disgusting sin.
Gandhi was a snake oil salesman who won a P.R. battle against British imperialism. Thank God he did. He was the right schmuck at the right time. His people owe him thanks.
However, his legacy is a burden on the whole human race. Unfortunately many naiive, but well-placed, people believe we can take Gandhian "principles" and apply them to all of reality.
Gandhi's notion of applying his asinine philosophy to the fight against Hitler is not only laughable, it's arrogant to the point of megalomania. It shows he was willing to let the whole human race go down with the ship, because of his own belief in his special relationship with his stupid pantheistic universe.
And to sum it up, let me pose this question:
Gahndi says,"the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife." So, how exactly does his philosophy differ, in practice, from that of Hitler?
10 Comments:
Gahndi's philosophy espouses a bold fearless pacifism (an almost militant pacifism), which is different from Hitler's philosophy/role as a murderer. Gahndi's bold pacifism (ahisma) brings attention to the dignity of the person being oppressed and is more likely to humanize the person in the mind of the oppressor, perhaps to appeal to the compassionate part of the oppressor who does ultimately share a common humanity, this common humanity is the source of the most lasting peace and reconciliation between peoples. Hitler's philosophy seeks to alienate one group of people from others, ignoring and denying their common humanity for the selfish purposes of the individual, which is manifested most horrifically in holocausts and genocides.
Orange Cross,
You are a lemming. Have a nice trip.
It should be remembered that Gandhi also lavished praise on Indian nationalists like Ras Behari Bose and Subhas Chandra Bose, who went into exile in Nazi Germany and held military rank in the SS.
On joining the Germans...
Your enemy's enemy is your friend, it was a means to an end, ie end of 200yrs of british occupation.
Be careful P, you may go upsetting your many Hindu infidels with postings such as these, and we wouldn't want that would we...
Ghandi's 'weapon' is functional only against CONSCIENCE.
The fact it worked against the british, is MEANINGFUL..it FAILED to keep India unified where Islam was concerned though, didn't it?
The conscience engendered by loyalty to god, or a creed can easily trump that which Ghandi depended on.
That 'weapon' is as useless in this war as the main weapon at Crecy.
Anonymous,
No, I wouldn't want to upset the Hindu Infidels. That's a good point. I did say that Gandhi won, and that's a good thing.
But, you know what, his bullshit has become such a problem in our Western society that we need to start being honest about it.
I'm sorry if I have upset any Hindu Infidels by posting this.
I'd love to hear their thoughts. They must understand that Gandhi's methods would not have worked against Hitler.
Epa,
Good points.
I thought you were interested in how Gandhi and Hitler's tactics differed.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Gandhi mobilized his troops to destoy British buildings and mark Britons for death. Whereas Hitler did destroy Jewish businesses and mark Jews for death.
And you know what, if there had been a strong sense of Jewish pseudo nationalism in Germany (I don't believe there was enough solidarity for mobilization) then with the aid of a strong leader such as Gandhi using tactics similar to what Gandhi used (a bold/unyielding pacifism in the streets and in public) I believe many fewer people would have died in the genocide. First, because the German people in general, including police forces, were not exceptionally different from the British forces in India, such that there would have been a similar revulsion on the part of the German people had they been faced with bold non-violent resistance. Second, the population being persecuted was large enough that no amount of mechanization or small force secret infiltration methods that the SS used could have succeeded where there was widespread bold non-violent resistance. Third, there would most likely have still been large numbers of deaths because of the intensity of the dictator's war machine however the nature of the bold non-violent response would have elicited a more active response from Germany's own populace and surrounding countries. The war would not have been as successful for the Nazi's had the intensity of their assualt on their own people been more clearly understood by the world at large.
Gandhi's tactics do work on the conscience, and it is successful because regardless of dogma and socialization there is a common psychology amongst people. It may not unify people along religious lines or any other kind of artificial grouping but it can lead people to recognize the dignity of their fellows and have peaceful accords along artificial divisions. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with a divison of what was once an "India" into a Pakistan and India, the horrible thing is that violent harm erupts inflicted between the groups. If anything will trump their religious differences its going to have to be something more basic to the human psyche, meaning conscience.
Are there any Hindu's out there? Any Muslim's? Any Christians? Jains? Atheists? I don't know where they are, but I know we're all human. We're all born with mortal bodies. We feel pain when we're injured. We also feel joy and revel when there is peace and our consciences are clear.
Remember that Ghandi did say: 'I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'
I do not understand his courage, but perhaps neither do you.
You mean his callous demeanor in the face of other people's suffering.
You're right, I don't understand it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home