One of the undercurrents here is that anti-war is an active measure, to use a KGB term, where foreign influences work to weaken culturally and emotionally a government that they cannot defeat militarily. This tactic is even used politically. Jimmy Carter, "the great man for peace" as labeled by dictators and murderers
Exactly. Every culture, every religion and every society, including Jainism, the religion most committed to non-violence, validates wars of self-defence. The Bhagavad-Gita, although acknowledging non-violence as the primary dharma makes a sustained argument for a war of dharma, which is a war of self-defence against tyrants who wish to murder and to rape: https://ruthvanita452091.substack.com/p/stand-up-and-fight Gandhi got it absolutely wrong when he misinterpreted the Gita as being in favour of non-violence under all circumstances.
It's interesting that Gandhi has been promoted in the West as the "gold standard" for how to address the problem of violence. As we get older and wiser we begin to recognize that many of our cherished beliefs were probably promoted by the Left to short-circuit our healthy instincts for self-preservation, to wit:
"Two wrongs don't make a right." "Violence never solves anything." "Guns can never defeat an ideology." "War is not good for children and other living things." "Make love not war."
I'm sure others could add to the list. It's painful to be forced to admit that much of what we embraced as a "higher standard of morality" was actually a set of dogmas that were tailored to encourage our passivity and pacifism in the face of aggression.
Gandhi was a fool. He suggested the Jews not resist Hitler at all and opposed WWII. Harry Turtledove wrote a great story called "The Last Article"which imagines a Nazi occupation of India and how Gandhi's tactics would have worked against them rather than the essentially liberal British.
Increasingly, Indians are reconsidering and critiquing Gandhi. For one thing, he didn't start the struggle against the British. He simply picked up from a number of older great leaders. One of those earlier leaders, Sri Aurobindo, was highly critical of Gandhi's idea of "non-violence," saying that it would produce greater violence, which it finally did. Secondly, he called off major campaigns just because a minor violent incident happened somewhere. This resulted in him and all the major Congress leaders being imprisoned, which gave the Muslim League the chance to wrest the Muslim vote away from the Congress, and demand Pakistan. Third and most important, when Hindus were slaughtered en masse in the Moplah Muslim riots, he advised Hindus not to fight back because Muslims were merely following their religious mandate to convert others. Likewise, he advised the British to allow Hitler to occupy England (fortunately, the English ignored him) and the Jews to not fight back either. And he also supported the Arabs against the Jews in the matter of Israel. When his non-violent theories failed completely during Partition, he turned his "non-violent" weapon of fasting against the new Indian government, to force them to give a huge amount of money to Pakistan. This angered many Hindus, one of whom assassinated him, citing the Gita in his defence speech. Gandhi was deified, and we were not taught about any of these and his other problematic actions in school. People who are now discovering this history are angry too.
The problem with the 'West'—that is, minus the US—is that it lived under the illusion of being in a post-war era. Many still wish to maintain that illusion—if you are unable to defend yourself, anti-war is a refuge, comparable to crawling under the bed when danger threatens. At this moment, the West is a paper tiger, and it will take another 5 or 10 years before the tiger has some meat on its bones again. The US, as a neo-authoritarian state, does not suffer from this: the imperial tendencies have never gone away.
No, it's Jainism (founded sixth century BC)which develops in great detail a thoroughgoing philosophy of non-violence, including non-violence against animals, especially those that experience greater pain (i.e. what we call mammals and birds as distinct from amoebae).
Perhaps I'll write a sub-stack about Jainism, with some info on how Jain kings nevertheless fought wars of self-defence. Gandhi was heavily influenced by Jainism but misunderstood both it and the Gita.
Please do write such a substack about Jainism. All I have ever really learned about it is “those are the people who wear masks so they will not inhale and kill even tiny organisms”. And are careful not to step on ants. Which must be a juvenile level of knowledge.
Thanks. I will. Someone else on sub-stack characterised Jains in that way, saying they are incompatible with Western civ because they sweep ants out of their way, and when I tried to explain, he promptly blocked m:)))
Yes - "anti-war" is anti-self-defence. It is anti-mutual assistance. It is a white flag, hanging perpetually for any potential or actual enemy to see and take advantage of. "Anti-war" is anti-survival.
Absolutely on target! To be unable to understand the difference between being clearly able to defend oneself and doing whatever it takes to actually defend oneself if attacked, or even clearly threatened of attack, is called suicide. If those criticizing Israel's defensive war are willing to stand by when attacked they are welcome to their family's enslavement or annihilation.
The problem with many young Americans (40 and under) is they will not die for any reason. As such they want any reason not to go to war.....that is wheu America has been invaded by the world wide Muslim religious war and they have already surrendered
I like this article, but I disagree with "A country that refuses to deter its enemies is not peaceful; it is inviting aggression. This is why Gaza lies in ruins today."
Gaza is in ruins not because of Israeli deterrence but because it has been the only way to destroy Hamas, which vowed to repeat October 7 over and over.
Israel's attacks on Gaza were, and are, not retaliation. They're an attempt to eliminate Hamas as a fighting force, despite Hamas deliberately using tunnels and civilians to protect themselves, and Hamas seeking the death of as many Palestinian children as possible in order to make Israel look bad — with the help of complicit mass media who deliberately ignore these facts.
To understand the logic of the left-liberal complex, it is necessary to consider that these people really believe that the actions of underdeveloped rouge states are actually caused by the west. Everything they do is our fault. Nobody says it much anymore but I believe this is still the bedrock of their emotion-based quasi-thinking.
The leftists are not anti-war and never have been. Leftists worship revolutionary violence and they now consider Islamism a revolutionary force. This is why they worship and celebrate it and only pretend to oppose violence when Israel acts in self defense.
Yup. The Red/Green Alliance where the Islamist use the leftists as “Useful Idiots”. These leftists are not anti-war, peace loving citizens of the world, they are war mongering morons who only oppose war when it’s the US or Israel.
One of the undercurrents here is that anti-war is an active measure, to use a KGB term, where foreign influences work to weaken culturally and emotionally a government that they cannot defeat militarily. This tactic is even used politically. Jimmy Carter, "the great man for peace" as labeled by dictators and murderers
That's a really good point.
Exactly. Every culture, every religion and every society, including Jainism, the religion most committed to non-violence, validates wars of self-defence. The Bhagavad-Gita, although acknowledging non-violence as the primary dharma makes a sustained argument for a war of dharma, which is a war of self-defence against tyrants who wish to murder and to rape: https://ruthvanita452091.substack.com/p/stand-up-and-fight Gandhi got it absolutely wrong when he misinterpreted the Gita as being in favour of non-violence under all circumstances.
It's interesting that Gandhi has been promoted in the West as the "gold standard" for how to address the problem of violence. As we get older and wiser we begin to recognize that many of our cherished beliefs were probably promoted by the Left to short-circuit our healthy instincts for self-preservation, to wit:
"Two wrongs don't make a right." "Violence never solves anything." "Guns can never defeat an ideology." "War is not good for children and other living things." "Make love not war."
I'm sure others could add to the list. It's painful to be forced to admit that much of what we embraced as a "higher standard of morality" was actually a set of dogmas that were tailored to encourage our passivity and pacifism in the face of aggression.
Gandhi was a fool. He suggested the Jews not resist Hitler at all and opposed WWII. Harry Turtledove wrote a great story called "The Last Article"which imagines a Nazi occupation of India and how Gandhi's tactics would have worked against them rather than the essentially liberal British.
Increasingly, Indians are reconsidering and critiquing Gandhi. For one thing, he didn't start the struggle against the British. He simply picked up from a number of older great leaders. One of those earlier leaders, Sri Aurobindo, was highly critical of Gandhi's idea of "non-violence," saying that it would produce greater violence, which it finally did. Secondly, he called off major campaigns just because a minor violent incident happened somewhere. This resulted in him and all the major Congress leaders being imprisoned, which gave the Muslim League the chance to wrest the Muslim vote away from the Congress, and demand Pakistan. Third and most important, when Hindus were slaughtered en masse in the Moplah Muslim riots, he advised Hindus not to fight back because Muslims were merely following their religious mandate to convert others. Likewise, he advised the British to allow Hitler to occupy England (fortunately, the English ignored him) and the Jews to not fight back either. And he also supported the Arabs against the Jews in the matter of Israel. When his non-violent theories failed completely during Partition, he turned his "non-violent" weapon of fasting against the new Indian government, to force them to give a huge amount of money to Pakistan. This angered many Hindus, one of whom assassinated him, citing the Gita in his defence speech. Gandhi was deified, and we were not taught about any of these and his other problematic actions in school. People who are now discovering this history are angry too.
The problem with the 'West'—that is, minus the US—is that it lived under the illusion of being in a post-war era. Many still wish to maintain that illusion—if you are unable to defend yourself, anti-war is a refuge, comparable to crawling under the bed when danger threatens. At this moment, the West is a paper tiger, and it will take another 5 or 10 years before the tiger has some meat on its bones again. The US, as a neo-authoritarian state, does not suffer from this: the imperial tendencies have never gone away.
I am not familiar with Jainism. I thought the religion most committed to non-violence were Quakers, who abhor war and violence of any kind.
No, it's Jainism (founded sixth century BC)which develops in great detail a thoroughgoing philosophy of non-violence, including non-violence against animals, especially those that experience greater pain (i.e. what we call mammals and birds as distinct from amoebae).
Learned something new!
Perhaps I'll write a sub-stack about Jainism, with some info on how Jain kings nevertheless fought wars of self-defence. Gandhi was heavily influenced by Jainism but misunderstood both it and the Gita.
Please do write such a substack about Jainism. All I have ever really learned about it is “those are the people who wear masks so they will not inhale and kill even tiny organisms”. And are careful not to step on ants. Which must be a juvenile level of knowledge.
Thanks. I will. Someone else on sub-stack characterised Jains in that way, saying they are incompatible with Western civ because they sweep ants out of their way, and when I tried to explain, he promptly blocked m:)))
Yes - "anti-war" is anti-self-defence. It is anti-mutual assistance. It is a white flag, hanging perpetually for any potential or actual enemy to see and take advantage of. "Anti-war" is anti-survival.
Again, crystal-clear writing and thinking. I have often had muddled thoughts along these lines but this essay cleared them. Shabbat Shalom.
Excellent essay! Sound common sense. Thank you!
Great piece. I do wonder if the anti-war/anti- self-defense stance is as staunch when Israel is not involved.
Absolutely on target! To be unable to understand the difference between being clearly able to defend oneself and doing whatever it takes to actually defend oneself if attacked, or even clearly threatened of attack, is called suicide. If those criticizing Israel's defensive war are willing to stand by when attacked they are welcome to their family's enslavement or annihilation.
What will you die for?
The problem with many young Americans (40 and under) is they will not die for any reason. As such they want any reason not to go to war.....that is wheu America has been invaded by the world wide Muslim religious war and they have already surrendered
I like this article, but I disagree with "A country that refuses to deter its enemies is not peaceful; it is inviting aggression. This is why Gaza lies in ruins today."
Gaza is in ruins not because of Israeli deterrence but because it has been the only way to destroy Hamas, which vowed to repeat October 7 over and over.
Israel's attacks on Gaza were, and are, not retaliation. They're an attempt to eliminate Hamas as a fighting force, despite Hamas deliberately using tunnels and civilians to protect themselves, and Hamas seeking the death of as many Palestinian children as possible in order to make Israel look bad — with the help of complicit mass media who deliberately ignore these facts.
Great essay. Thanks!
This is all I would add:
To understand the logic of the left-liberal complex, it is necessary to consider that these people really believe that the actions of underdeveloped rouge states are actually caused by the west. Everything they do is our fault. Nobody says it much anymore but I believe this is still the bedrock of their emotion-based quasi-thinking.
Cristal clear explanation.
That’s why Department of War! To send the message that we will Defense ourselves.
The leftists are not anti-war and never have been. Leftists worship revolutionary violence and they now consider Islamism a revolutionary force. This is why they worship and celebrate it and only pretend to oppose violence when Israel acts in self defense.
Yup. The Red/Green Alliance where the Islamist use the leftists as “Useful Idiots”. These leftists are not anti-war, peace loving citizens of the world, they are war mongering morons who only oppose war when it’s the US or Israel.
"A country that refuses to deter its enemies is not peaceful; it is inviting aggression" AND it is suicidal.