Skip to comments.THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PACIFISM & NON-VIOLENCE
Posted on 01/13/2012 10:30:01 AM PST by Jo Nuvark
Soft-headed liberals (sorry for the redundancy) too often confuse non-violent protest with pacifism. In many cases, peaceful protest is an important tool in fighting for liberty. But renouncing the use of violence in principle, under any circumstances, simply makes one an accomplice to evil and is an abomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“Pacifism Is Immoral, But Non-Violence Can Work”
“Pacifism Is Immoral, But Non-Violence Can Work”
Yet another myth concerning the left. Whatever it takes to further their agenda is what sort of protest will be forthcoming. If they can get it done by nonviolent means fine, if not violence is good too. The left isnt about morals and ethics its about force to impose their views on everyone else. They never put anything off the table b/c all is fair game for them...guns. violence, murder what ever its takes.
They regard auto-castration as the quintessence of civilization and sophistication. They aren't really assertive in a male way, but a catty or bitchy way, like the New York Times or their perfectly manless man, Obama. ....
In the triangulated war between liberals, Islamists, and the left, only one side can win. Our side will lose if we run out of real men because our feminized culture no longer creates enough of them.
We will lose if we allow the new cutural ideal of the feminized adultolescent male to become the ideal. We will lose if we forget that an upright and noble man with the capacity for righteous violence is at the very foundation of civilization.
Liberals sneer at such men, which is to say, men. I found a typical example by a college professor at dailykos, called A Pacifists Agony.
S/h/it writes that I've always hated the term war crime, since it's an insidious tautology. It implies that some wars are not crimes, and some of the atrocities committed during war are excusable by virtue of their context.
I believe that if there can be any single concept by which a civilization ought to be defined it's this: there is no context that can justify the intentional killing of a sentient being who does not wish it. Period. (Somehow, I'm sure there is a loophole for abortion.)
The professor's job is not to educate students but to make them politically aware, which in practice means to arrest their developmental journey toward adulthood, and especially manhood. It is a form of spiritual and intellectual body-snatching; for the boys, it means a fantasized acquisition of manhood, for the girls, contempt for it.
Before being undicktrinated, students are not particularly politically aware, but by semesters end, if all goes well, they will be different people.
They now understand the direct relationship between their own deliberately inculcated ignorance and the crimes that are committed in their name. They will have inverted reality, so that they imagine themselves to be Morally Superior to the primitive and murderous men who protect and defend them.
This is why the left must constantly attack and undermine America, for that is what allows their sense of moral superiority to flourish. But the attack brings with it the unconscious fear of father's retaliation, hence the hysterical fears of murderous retribution for "speaking truth" to Father -- fear of spying, of theocratic takeovers, of Al Gore's world melting. When leftists say that George Bush is the world's greatest terrorist, they mean it, although it goes without saying that they have no insight into the unconscious basis of this hysterical projection of their own fear converted to anger and persecution. .....
.....As every psychoanalytically informed psychologist knows, there is the patient, there is the truth, and there is the truth they would like to deny, which is why they are in your office.
Truth has a life of its own, and has a way of insisting its way into the patients discourse, try as they might to prevent it from doing so.
The truth is true, and doesnt actually require anyone to think it. But this is not so of the lie. The lie is entirely parasitic on a thinker. Furthermore, the liar implicitly knows the truth, otherwise it couldn't lie about it. Pacifism is just such a lie, for it contains the truth to which it is a reaction: ."..the blood of men who are far better than I, men who stand ready to do violence against the forces of evil that have made a moment like this and a person like me possible. And it's more than I can bear." ~ Chomsky
Yes, that would require growing up and facing the unpleasant Truth
“To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated.” Trefor Thomas
This, of course, is precisely what is wrong with all forms of leftist do-gooderism, and why their ideas do not work in practice. To be perfectly accurate, like the Dalai Lamas ideas, they will work, but only in paradise -- as will Maos ideas. But if you willfully confuse the herebelow with paradise, a lot of people are going to be hurt and killed. And you wont get paradise anyway. ...."
When I hear some coward say they would never use violence I stop talking to them and simply say, “Who cares what you think? You’re not that smart and you’re not willing to do anything about anything I do.”
P.S. Liberals DO believe in violence...they just want someone else to carry the gun.
Nice post Matchett-PI!
Ditto! nice post.
Just two words explains the difference.
Thank you both!