The illusion of peace

Not bad at all:

Once upon a time it was treasonous to oppose wars, now it is virtually mandatory to do so. Today it is treasonous to oppose peace processes, no matter how ill-founded, how senseless and how pointless they might be. The treason is no longer toward a country, but toward an ideal.

The greatest problem is people who believe this without understanding its ramifications:

Peace happens when ordinary people of goodwill under the leadership of a few enlightened peacemongers get together and realize how much they have in common and that any disputes they have can be settled over some coffee or tea. No mythical ideal propounded by the postmoderns is quite as dully stupid and thoroughly delusional as this one. It is progressive in its insistence that we are all alike because we are human and that being the same means that there is no reason for conflict.

Enshrined in music:

Sigh. What can one say? If I were to say this is the politics of the child, that would be demeaning and offensive, no?

We do not stand at the end of history, but we are witness to the end of the West, which remains as deeply in love with the peace process, as the members of the League of Nations, shortly before their pacifism destroyed Europe and plunged the world into the most destructive war in human history which left the winners locked in a struggle that nearly culminated in the end of life on earth.

The end of the West has been some time coming but coming it is and it’s no accident, as illustrated in this clip:

This is where I take the author to task a little:

No pacifist who ever shook his fist at the bomb ever considered the simple fact that the bomb and the Cold War would likely never have even been necessary had the much despised European imperialists done their duty after the previous world war and kept the peace with fleets and armies, rather than with empty speechifying about a new age.

The imperialists were never going to do their duty because they were in thrall to others. I’ve put many, many quotes up on this blog by people in positions of power over the past hundred years. Just as Wilson was in thrall to the people represented by House and Warburg, so David Cameron is in thrall to the same masters as Blair and Brown. People on all sides, at least, have seen through Blair and are beginning to see Cameron as a Blair clone, which many pundits have been writing about since 2007.

The people behind the imperialists are not nice people and this is where the peaceniks you saw above, a situation only ever possible in the soft underbelly of a decaying society, having lovely thoughts of peace many of us would also like to see in an ideal world, differ from such as me because I know that while there is Them, while people don’t even recognize Them for who they are, then the peaceniks can only ever be, at best, naive hopefuls and at worst, unwitting agents for Them themselves, e.g. Soros, Sutherland, Trichet, Strong, Gore, the IPCC.

Whoever it will be, the power will be wielded by men who do not think like reasonable top hatted diplomats. Power is wielded by bastards. Not the kind who put up wind farms that don’t work and pocket the profits, but the kind who overrun nations.

What we have here is a reality deficit and a real difference in basic sensibilities. Do people really think that selling off the harriers and retiring carriers is the way to defend a nation? Do people really think that we don’t need defences because Rumpy-Pumpy guarantees us that everyone’s going to be one big, happy family?

People who get their meat from a supermarket and deny the reality of death in the affairs of men think that war is a senseless and squeamish thing. But to the people on the other side, who grow up slitting the throats of goats while knowing that they may one day have to do the same thing to their sisters, war is eminently rational. It isn’t a way of getting what you want– it is a way of getting everything you want.

None of us want war but if I might quote Dean Inge [Outspoken Essays: First Series – 1919]:

It takes, in reality, only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion.

Postmoderns want to be left in peace to design their perfect utopian state with hot and cold running health care and free bicycles on every block. The premoderns want to take those things, play with them and then set them on fire. The last part is not very rational, but it is very human.

Yuri Bezmenov, in that clip above, was offensive to “progressive” Americans – that’s so. Yet he was on the money because he identified that point in the demoralization process when a new generation [Gen X/Y] have not grown up with the same heritage, the same mores and the same history as generations before. More than that, they’re utterly convinced they are on the right path and on the side of good.

Reason of course does not matter to the rationalizers of peace processes. Their moral conviction that the only way the world will become a better place is if we wave the white flag can never be disarmed by trifles such as facts, history or the bombs going off before their eyes. Escalating violence only affirms their conviction that war is wrong, and if war is wrong, the only answer is peace.

I love Europe and various people I’ve met from different countries I’ve always liked. I fear we’re being pushed into polarized positions though as the dangers become apparent and Brits will start to hate the French and Germans, fight Spanish armadas and so on. I don’t want that, especially if it arises out of the cynical warmongering machinations of politicians.

On the other hand, not to defend ourselves, not to prepare for war, is utter lunacy, as Churchill might have said to Chamberlain. Chamberlain may well have been right, in philosophical terms, in his Kettering speech of 1938:

In a war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners but all are losers.

… but in the context of 1938/9, he was hopelessly naive. And we paid the price in lives.

It takes, in reality, only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion.

[H/T Lord Somber]