An article on Pacifism...

Pacifism: The Case Against, Distilled

By Phil Elmore


What is Pacifism?

Pacifism is the doctrine of non-violence. It is the philosophy that the use of force is always wrong. It is the credo that one may not hurt or kill another human being even when that person uses physical violence against you or those you love. Pacifists may engage in "nonviolent" resistance -- that is to say, they may actively resist even though they will not use what we would normally consider force -- but they will not fight.

A pacifist would attempt to place himself between his wife and his wife's would-be rapist, giving his life to "protect" her, but he would not actually hurt or kill the rapist. The logical outcome of this scenario is a dead husband and a violated wife (as well as an unbroken chain of violated women in the future).

A group of pacifists might gather together to stand before an advancing army and throw their bodies under the treads and wheels of the invaders' war machines, but they would not actually try to kill any of the invaders. The logical outcome of this scenario is a pile of dead pacifists and a sacked city (as well as an unbroken chain of sacked cities in the future).

False Moral Equivalency

The fundamental flaw of pacifism is that of false moral equivalency. There is a difference between initiated and retaliatory force. If you do not make this distinction -- if you do not see the difference between attacking someone and defending against that attack -- you are, in effect, declaring both attacker and defender to be morally equal. You are saying that there is no difference between the rapist and the raped, the mugger and the mugged, the murderer and the murdered. You are saying that there is no moral difference between the September 11th hijackers and those they slashed to death, no difference between Osama bin Laden and those condemned to be torn and blown to pieces in fiery collisions.

It is very easy to play the part of nihilist, of relativist, wandering in the forest of affected profundity, wondering aloud if a distinction between initiated and retaliatory force can really be made. Anyone actually applying philosophy to life in a practical manner will immediately perceive the difference. Our first social interactions with other children are marked by the distinction, something as simple as understanding who "started it" when two individuals come into conflict.

If we have a verbal disagreement and I strike you, I have initiated force. If we have a verbal disagreement and you tell me you are going to strike me as you take a step toward me and cock your arm, I am using retaliatory force when I strike you before you can complete your attack. All conflicts in life are permutations of these simple examples. While the complexity of these interactions on a national level can make moral judgment much more difficult, it does not make necessary judgment impossible.

Attackers and defenders are not morally equivalent. A moral difference exists between initiated and retaliatory force. That same moral difference exists between initiated and preemptive force (force taken to preempt a credible threat).

Contempt for All Life

Pacifists claim to want peace and believe they adhere to the doctrine of nonviolence because they respect life. The practical results of pacifism, however, are exactly the opposite: a total contempt for life. This contempt extends beyond the individual pacifist to encompass all other human beings.

Anyone who would die rather than use force, particularly when he or she is more than capable of applying the force necessary to preserve his or her life, shows contempt for the gift of that life, for the potential wasted when that life is thrown away. By itself, then, pacifism is a self-immolating doctrine whereby the logical standard of "good" -- to promote and sustain rational individual life -- is discarded in favor of "peace" at any price.

This peace would more accurately be termed unilateral surrender, in which aggressors may hurt and even kill the pacifist before he or she will do more than throw his or her body onto the sacrificial altar of passive resistance. Few invading armies stop invading and go home out of disgust at the overwhelming ease of conquering victims who will not fight back.

This contempt for life extends to the pacifist's fellow human beings. Aggressors are, by their natures, more likely to initiate force against others if they demonstrate a willingness to initiate force against you. If, when confronted with this evidence, you do nothing to preserve your own life, you do nothing to make it more difficult for the aggressor to seek more victims. If all you do is passively resist, throwing your life onto the pyre of symbolic gestures, you are enabling the aggressor through your inaction. The blood of any subsequent victims is on your folded hands.

If an aggressor knew that it was quite likely each victim he chose would fight back, making his aggression an action fraught with risk, he would be more reluctant to strike. If, on the other hand, he could expect his victims to die nobly while resisting him passively, he could take his actions with impunity, knowing that there was no danger to him in his predations.

Are Pacifists Cowards?

Some speculate that pacifists' unwillingness to fight is indicative of cowardice. There are many types of cowardice, however -- some obvious and some deeply buried. I think most pacifists actually believe themselves to be very brave, in that they believe it is much more difficult to refuse to use violence than to hurt or kill another human being.

This is true, in a way. It is much harder to refuse to use force to protect yourself and your loved ones, to guard jealously the gift of your life. This is because it is hard to fight your nature as a human being, to actively resist the logical standard of value for rational human life.

Fundamentally, pacifism is a doctrine, a philosophy, of inaction. What is inaction, then, if not cowardice, however deeply rooted and obscured by the layers of our beings? A given pacifist might indeed be brave enough to speak out and to die, might indeed possess the "courage" of his or her convictions. This is the "courage" to throw one's life away for a given cause, however noble.

Life, however, requires more than a willingness to die. It requires the strength necessary to go on living, to stand and to fight against evil, to actively oppose through forceful action the depredations of society's destroyers. It is not enough to throw one's body under the wheels of the advancing tanks. One must be willing to cover those tanks with fire, lead those tanks into concealed pits, pry open the tanks' hatches and shoot and stab to death those who would seek to subjugate others by force.

Religious Motivations

Some adhere to pacifist doctrines in the belief that this is required of them by the Divine. One may indeed labor under the notion that a goddess, a god, or the God (however one chooses to look at it) would ask you to die before standing up for the life that is rightfully yours, before protecting those you love from others who would violate them. What manner of evil, soul-destroying gods would these be?

The gods love us and take an interest in human affairs. They are not cold creatures who would ask us to lie down and die simply because one or more of our fellow humans demanded it. To think they could ask this is to show contempt for the Divine itself, to embrace a delusion so antithetical to human life that it is almost a preemptive plea for death.

Religious motivations are irrelevant in considering the practical outcomes of pacifism. Pacifism is both evil and morally bankrupt specifically because it is self-destructive and contemptuous of human life. No rationale, no alleged dictate from the Divine, can change this.

The Alternative to Pacifism

Life is a struggle, but not a bleak one. To live life actively, to live to the fullest of your being, is to stand your ground in the face of the myriad forces and individuals who might oppose you, dominating every space you occupy and driving forward to do what you must, what you will.

To fight those arrayed against you, it is necessary to embrace the arts of war. These are neither evil nor good in and of themselves. They are simply the means to certain ends. You must reject the doctrine of pacifism. You must embrace the alternative. You must steep yourself in the knowledge required to wield the tools of war. You must train your mind and your body in the skills required to accomplish this successfully. You must be prepared to fight aggression, to oppose evil, to take action. You must be willing to settle things.

Welcome and a little about me...

Welcome to the Pagan Warrior blog! My name is Josh and I'm Wiccan who follows a Traditional path. I also practice Ceremonial High Magick and I'm really into martial arts (not the flippy dippy crap - I train real world combat oriented martial arts). Lifting is also of great importance to me as well.

This blog is about STRENGTH, it's about MEN'S Pagan Spirituality, it's about WARRIORSHIP. This blog is about what is means to be a truly virtuous, truly strong Pagan Man in today's world.