From Ralph Peters, via Redneck's Revenge:
New York Post - THE greatest lie intellectuals tell us is that "the pen is mightier than the sword." That's what cowards claim when they want to preen as heroes.
Billions of words have been hurled at Sudan's government. The misery in Darfur not only continues but deepens. While intellectuals wrestled with compound sentences, Darfur degenerated from selective oppression to savage anarchy.
Legions of columnists and commentators have deplored Robert Mugabe's monstrous rule in Zimbabwe. But none of the hand-wringing by American, European or even African intellectuals restrained one fist or stopped one club in midair.
Guess who "won" that election.
Regiments of professors and pundits have bemoaned China's gobbling of Tibet for half a century. The result? Beijing cracked down even harder.
"Brave" columnists wrote countless columns bemoaning the suffering of the Kurds and the Shia under Saddam Hussein. Their earnest paragraphs didn't save a single life.
Only when better men acted did the surviving victims of one of the world's worst dictatorships glimpse freedom - an imperfect freedom but better than a mass grave.
Nothing positive is going to happen in Sudan or Zimbabwe (or Tibet) until rule-of-law states take action. As outraged activists scribble on, Beijing blithely continues supporting these and other rogue regimes (and our president crawls to the Olympics - it's as if FDR had rushed to the games in Berlin).
There was a good reason the assassins of 9/11 attacked the targets they did, rather than steering those planes into Columbia University or Harvard Yard: They knew that the potency of the intellectual is illusory, that it dissolves at the first shot.
As I pointed out on July 4, even our glorious Declaration of Independence and our Constitution would be no more than bizarre artifacts had they not been defended by patriots willing to fight.
Does anyone really believe that there's anything we can write or say that will persuade al Qaeda to make nice? It's on the strategic defensive today but only because our soldiers and Marines thumped the hell out of its cadres in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The point isn't that military solutions are always the best solutions - any problem that can be resolved without bloodshed should be handled peaceably. But we've got to stop playing pretend: In this hate-plagued, often merciless world, events sometimes demand action, not just talk.
Our diplomats and "distinguished commentators" see the world from the 17th floor of a luxury hotel or the office of an English-speaking Cabinet member. The insular safety of their lives has convinced them that every problem has a peaceful solution if only we can all have a good chat.
But those who rule by the sword (or the fist, or engineered famines or outright genocide) don't want to hash things out. They want to win.
No elegant phrase has ever stopped a bullet in midflight.
Please, educate me: In over 5,000 years of more or less recorded history, how many tyrannies have been overthrown by noble sentiments? How many genocides have been averted by reasonable discussions? How many wars have been prevented by Quakers?
Pacifism, in the face of evil, is suicide. Therefore, absolutist political pacifism is the most evil idea in the world.
9 comments:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2008/07/10/01003-20080710ARTFIG00240-petition-en-faveur-des-electeurs-en-pampers-.php
Bravo!!! Excellent post,
LOL, you know that was one thing that Really pissed the left party I was in,
when I started on the plan that women in Sudan should wait for those Janjaweed, because they rape them every time they go collect water,
and have inserted, no joke now, bombs, Boom, I mean, kill about ten at once.
Of course when bringing this up to the left [which pissed them off, oh hell no they don't want women rising up in defense and killing, Unless of course its for Palestine, then yea, that shits fine, be beaten up, fucked by daddy and uncle and god knows what, have half of your genitalia hacked up, be a lifeless unfeeling drone then when its convenient go bomb yourself or children for 'de nation of Islam',
but dare not do it do defend womankind...
and the feminists aren't any better, bitch and whine, men rape, blah blah Blah but don't rise up in violence because then thats assimilation into patriarchy, ok so what is to be done,
oh, yea, by magic one day all the men will like, poof disappear and we'll have this like, woman only lesbian nirvana, this Amazon movement or what have you,
LOL yea I mean, its just pacifist bullshit, people who've gone 'soft'.
Granted I can understand somewhat of the feminists opposed to violence because women who resort to violence to defend themselves get the screws put to them, in a big way--no argument from me there,
but in war time? They say who will care for the children? And I'm like, hey stupid, who's there to care for them now?
Guerrilla fighters using kids as shields and sex slaves and forcing boys in madrassas to convert,
you might as well Die fighting, they going to kill you and rape you anyway,
why not take as many of them down with you as you can.
But too, that whole pacifism shit, is also one of the psychologies that the left has been using for years, to diminish the survival instinct/preservation in people, Unless its centered around
race,
but if its women or poor or whites,
well, then its just bad protocol to support self-defense, its always the Ghandi tactics,
well, yea Ghandi was not too favored in South Africa where his racism-elitism and anti-Semitism really showed.
and they always forget one thing, Sure, peace, Pakistan and India,
but look at what it cost? Bangladesh. The poorest and oppressed of that entire region,
so much for pacifism hey. Its a great tool too, if you want to sell out half to slavery to save one's own ass,
the ones who preach the virtues of pacifism, nine out of ten, are ones who preach from a position of Privilege, They have the means to like, fly off somewhere and escape when the shit hits the fan,
the poor and most don't, they'll be the ones left on the killing fields. EVERY TIME,
why they always criminalize the masses for arming themselves, its not because they care about violence, the poor could do each other in, they could care less,
its when it becomes a Threat to Their position, is when they get all in a tiff, or when the institutions decide the excess of peoples or undesirables are in the way, and they want to remove them...
disarming people = eventual mass graves.
May not happen overnight but it doesn't need too, disarm them long enough, they'll grow to DEPEND on the very ones who lord it over them to protect them--and when that day comes when the ones who lord it over them become their worse nightmare [UK for example],
they are SCREWED.
but then, there is always the blackmarket... ;) Interesting research on where that whole blackmarket in Arms goes, hint hint,
its not in the west.
Natasha
Every infidel should own firearms and know how to use them.
Pastorius,
"Pacifism, in the face of evil, is suicide. Therefore, absolutist political pacifism is the most evil idea in the world."
I wouldn't know if I would say that, but total pacifism is rather naive, if not stupid. However, in a world where everyone was a total pacifist, there would be no violence. Maybe the evil people who want to kill the pacifists are worse, since a logically consistent pacifist can attack no one.
Keep in mind something must also be motivating the evil people who want to harm you. Evil isn't just the absence of good, its the absence of good plus something else. In the absence of both good and evil, you have neither good or evil.
Here's a link to some posts dealing with pacifism.
Read, in particular, the one called;
Great Moments in the History of Pacifism:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/search?q=gandhi+sacred+cow
Try to answer the question at the end of that post.
And then, tell me whether or not Pacifism is the most evil ideology in the world.
Pastorius,
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?
In a way it does not, but still Ghandi never actually orchestrated any of the killing, Hitler and his henchmen did. A world where everyone was a pacifistic and lived up to the belief system would be a world free of violence. I am not saying that's possible in the real world. By the way, I should have said that I knew that pacifism wasn't the greatest evil in the world. Reason is that pacifism needs evil violent people to be harmful. How can you submit if their is no one to submit to? How can you allow yourself to be murdered if no one is trying to murder you. Do you think that the Amish are morally equivalent to the Nazis and the Jihadists as well? What would you rather have living across the street from you, a Jihadist, or a Ghandi? Pacifists are only dangerous if there is some evil around that needs to be resisted. (In a world without evil it wouldn't be an issue, as I state earlier) But just one Jihadist can be dangerous all by himself, with no pacifists around to submit to him. A genuine pacifist won't murder you, a Jihadist might. So answer my question, which of those two chooses would you prefer, if you had to choose one of them? Would it be someone like Ghandi, or would it be a Jihadist?
What you say makes sense Damien. Gandhi didn't kill anyone.
But, in the name of God he was willing to jettison all morality for Peace.
That is taking the Lord's name in vain
TO THE MAX.
Pastorius,
You also have a point.
Post a Comment